Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
There is no Tibetan term which means "ground of being", this isn't that difficult to understand, and further has zero to do with "positions", classical or otherwise.
You seem heavily invested in this.

krodha wrote:
On the contrary you seem to be the one that is clinging to decrepit translations so that you can bend these teachings to fit some desired narrative.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
Right, so an outdated translation since gzhi is not a "ground of being" in any sense.

Malcolm has gone over this point thoroughly, various times.
Malcolm is a proponent of a position. I respect his position. It is classical Dharma. There are other positions to which he objects. He is entitled to do so. There is no unanimity in TB--aside from the 4 Thought that Turn the Mind.

krodha wrote:
There is no Tibetan term which means "ground of being", this isn't that difficult to understand, and further has zero to do with "positions", classical or otherwise.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
To put this to rest: what Tibetan term does "ground of being" allegedly translate?
p.238 of the glossary:

ground [of being]=gzhi

The next entry is:

ground manifestation=gzhi snang

krodha wrote:
Right, so an outdated translation since gzhi is not a "ground of being" in any sense.

Malcolm has gone over this point thoroughly, various times.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
That translation is outdated, there is no such thing as a "ground of being" in Dzogchen... apart from the ālaya of course, which is pure ignorance.
Kalu Rinpoche Translation Committee. State of the art translation.

You keep making that assertion. There are multiple presentations on Dzogchen. This one you don't like. That's ok, it is not the only presentation.

krodha wrote:
Knowledge of these systems has evolved since then. There is no such thing as a "ground of being" in Dzogchen. And no, there are not "multiple presentations", but there are outdated translations predicated on outdated understanding.

To put this to rest: what Tibetan term does "ground of being" allegedly translate?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
No, actually it is specifically and deliberately being presented as a "ground of being". "Myriad Worlds" is about the various cosmologies, starting with Mr Meru and such. It ends with a Dzogchen cosmology, which is unambiguously a "ground of being". Excluding the presence of either buddhas or sentient beings makes that clear.

Hey, you don't have to buy it. Plenty of people have become enlightened that find such ideas heresy. But plenty of people, such as Kongtrul himself presumably, have become enlightened while holding those types of ideas. So either way is fine. It is a matter of preference.

krodha wrote:
That translation is outdated, there is no such thing as a "ground of being" in Dzogchen... apart from the ālaya of course, which is pure ignorance.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Gzhan stong simply says that your nature is not deprived of qualities... it doesn't advocate for ontological, transpersonal, holotropic, unconditioned existents.

dzogchungpa said:
Seriously dude, I know you like Capriles but it's enough with 'holotropic' already.

krodha wrote:
What's wrong with "holotropic"? It's a very succinct way to say that something is singular and whole.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
Gzhan stong simply says that your nature is not deprived of qualities... it doesn't advocate for ontological, transpersonal, holotropic, unconditioned existents.
Kongtrul's "Myriad Worlds" p,204: What is the fundamental nature of the original, primordial ground of being, before buddhas appear by realizing it and before sentient beings appear by not realizing it? To answer this, the tradition of Great Perfection states that...
Sounds like Kongtrul is taking "the basis" to mean it is actually "the basis".

krodha wrote:
If this is a Dzogchen context then this is simply a bad translation of a passage that is referencing the gzhi... which definitely is not a "ground of being".


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
Lol come on.

krodha wrote:
What? "gcig shes kun grol" means "knowing one thing, liberates all things"

And what is this one thing?

Padmasambhava states:
Do not resolve the Dharma, resolve your mind.
To resolve your mind is to know the one which frees all.
Not to resolve your mind is to know all but lack the one.
A common notion in Atiyoga texts, but it is also found elsewhere... for example the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra states:
What is called "knowledge of all things" is the result of knowing one thing: the true nature of phenomena, which has the attribute of peace.
This "one thing" is an epistemic insight. Not some ontological truth.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
Brahman is an ontological, transpersonal, holotropic, unconditioned existent... there is absolutely nothing like that in the buddhadharma.
That depends. If you define anything like that as a tirthika heresy, then yes, by definition there is nothing like that in Buddhadharma.

However you'd have to include Shentongpas in that dismissal, which would include the modern Karma Kagyu sect of TB. As a self-identifying Kagyupa I find that a bit harsh.

krodha wrote:
Gzhan stong simply says that your nature is not deprived of qualities... it doesn't advocate for ontological, transpersonal, holotropic, unconditioned existents.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
Venerable Tong Songchol had wrong view?

krodha wrote:
I don't agree with a lot of East Asian Buddhist views, but to be completely honest I thought this was your writing due to the fact that you did not cite this quotation properly at all. Upon re-reading it is clear that he is speaking of the nature of mind, as in the prajñāpāramitā statement which says the knowledge of one thing liberates all things i.e., gcig shes kun grol. He isn't speaking of some sort of "one thing" in the sense of a Vedantin type transpersonal, holotropic existent.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
When attempting to climb a mountain one should begin, Zen masters say, at the top, and strangely enough I have found this most effective. So let us begin with the Everest of human thought, the Absolute.

krodha wrote:
There is no such thing as an "absolute" in the buddhadharma, apart from ultimate truth, which isn't an "absolute" in the way you mean.

frankc said:
It has of course no name, but men have never wearied of supplying one. The Hindus speak of THAT, the Christians, at their best, of Gottheit, 'Godness' beyond God. In Buddhism we read of 'the Unborn, Unoriginated, Unconditioned'. Later we read of the Adi-Buddha, Dharmakaya, Sunyata, Mind-Only and the essence of the pure mind (or No-Mind)

krodha wrote:
Sorry, but this just sounds like a weak attempt at some sort of perennialism. There is no such thing as a shared "absolute" that all traditions are referring to, this is a wrong view.

frankc said:
How to describe this land? We cannot, for it is void of every attribute we could supply, it is without limit or shape of any conceivable kind. From the book "Exploring Buddhism", page 92.

Udana Nikaya (viii: 3)

“There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. Udana Nikaya (viii:3)

krodha wrote:
This is describing the absorption cessation of an arhat, not some perennialist, transpersonal "absolute".

frankc said:
In Vajrayana Buddhism, the Adi-Buddha, or Adibuddha (Tibetan: Dang-po'i sangs-rgyas), is the "Primordial Buddha." The term refers to a self-emanating, self-originating Buddha, present before anything else existed. Samantabhadra, Vairocana and Vajradhara are the best known names for Adi-Buddha, though there are others like Sanghyang Adi Buddha from Indonesia. Adi-Buddha is usually depicted as dark blue. Adi-Buddha is better compared to the abstracted forces of Brahman, Ayn Sof or Arche rather than a personal creator God in the mold of Yahweh or Allah. Also, Adi-Buddha is not said to be the creator, but the originator of all things. Adi-Buddha is a deity in an emanationist sense. From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi-Buddha

krodha wrote:
The so-called Adi Buddha is the nature of your own mind, not some transpersonal "absolute". Whoever wrote that has no idea what they're talking about. Alas, that is the problem with Wikipedia, all one needs is a computer and an Internet connection and they can write whatever nonsense they want on there.

frankc said:
There is One Thing - It existed before the earth and skies came into being, and it will exist long after they all have disappeared. The heavens and earth could appear a thousand times and be destroyed ten thousand times, but this One Thing would not change at all.

krodha wrote:
Not according to the buddhadharma. There is no holotropic source in Buddhism. This is a tirthīka view.

frankc said:
This One Thing is incomprehensibly huge. The entire universe is just a spray of water in comparison to this ocean. This One Thing is incomparably brighter than a trillion billion suns and moons, and it constantly lights up everything. This absolute Great Light is beyond light and dark, and yet it lights everything that exists. This One Thing is beyond description, beyond discrimination, and it is absolute. But even the term "absolute" is entirely inadequate to describe it. To call it "One Thing" is to lie, because "One Thing" is only a name, and a terribly inadequate name. All Buddhas of the universe could spend eternity describing it, but such an effort would be insignificant. If you were to become enlightened, then you yourself would know; but you would never be able to explain it to anyone.

krodha wrote:
This view deviates from Buddhism altogether.

frankc said:
This One Thing is called "Buddha" by those who have become enlightened. It is beyond the agony of life and death, and those who know it become free-flowing for the rest of eternity. But those who have not become enlightened to this One Thing continue to struggle and suffer in the sea of life and death, in the everlasting cycle of the four forms of birth and the six realms of sentient existence. Even the tiniest form of life includes this One Thing. Both an enlightened Buddha and an unenlightened ant possess it. The only difference between them is that one knows it and the other doesn't.
It is so brilliant and astounding that even the Buddha and Bodhidharma cannot look at it when they raise their eyes. They can open their mouths, but cannot describe it. They and all our other Zen patriarchs become merely blind and mute in the face of it. All one can do is to become enlightened to it, and then become totally free-flowing in it.
Tong Songchol (1912~1993), one of the great Zen masters in the last century was also called the Living Buddha of Korea.

krodha wrote:
All of this is wrong view. You are attempting to make some sort of perennialist soup out of various traditions and then project it onto Buddhism.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Talking about the self, whatever that is
Content:
krodha wrote:
Just a word of friendly advice: if you really want people to engage with you and discuss your ideas you should try to be less verbose. I have no doubt that many people would like to interact and have a discussion with you, but most do not have time to read through a wall of text.

Which is to say you'll find that your replies will increase ten fold if you shorten your posts.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
If you follow the thought of various systems, and not just within the Buddhist fold, you'll find it very difficult to distinguish them at their ultimate levels. So we find in the Uttara Tantra that the Buddha as a dharmakaya is permanent, as samboghakaya luminous, as nirmanakaya everywhere, etc.; at this level the distinction "being" and "knowing" collapse and it takes a fine metaphysician to distinguish between this cosmic Buddha from Nirguna Brahman.

krodha wrote:
What do you mean? Brahman is an ontological, transpersonal, holotropic, unconditioned existent... there is absolutely nothing like that in the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
I could of swore an externalist...

krodha wrote:
The term is "eternalist", not "externalist".


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'm being a bit heavy handed with my criticism. I appreciate that Jackson has an affinity for the teachings, and I think it is good that he shares Dzogchen and brings it to people's attention who may otherwise never encounter it. I also think he means well and has a good heart, but I don't agree with his views and I don't think he is qualified to be teaching, especially not upadeśa teachings.

He actually sent me a message the other day on Facebook to say that he has read my criticisms and doesn't appreciate it and wanted me to remove them, and apologize. And I told him that this is how I feel.

I respect him as a man, and I wish him a long and happy life, but I don't think he is qualified to be teaching Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
steve_bakr said:
Judging from a retreat with Jackson Peterson in Mexico, I did not hear anything contradictory to Dzogchen teachings.

krodha wrote:
I really hope you're joking.

steve_bakr said:
He also gave spontaneous Pointing Out instructions, which I thought were simple and affective. I have also read some of his posts in another Internet forum.

krodha wrote:
The blind leading the blind.

steve_bakr said:
A lot of what I have seen here about Jackson Peterson looks like gossip: "He said," "She said."

krodha wrote:
No, it is simply an informed observation.

steve_bakr said:
"This teacher said this and that about him." My mind remains open.

krodha wrote:
Well, someone has to play the role of the guy who receives teachings from the fraud.

steve_bakr said:
I've seen nothing wrong in his teaching that I have heard or read.

krodha wrote:
That is because, unfortunately, you don't know any better.

steve_bakr said:
I think Longchenpa said, "Pay no attention to the personality of the teacher but pay attention to his teachings."

krodha wrote:
Right, and the teachings are inauthentic.

steve_bakr said:
Another gem of wisdom is: "The truth is self-authenticating."  Don't exclusively judge from a lineage. Verify the truth for yourself.

krodha wrote:
Not sure how that is relevant here.

steve_bakr said:
I get a red flag when someone judges another person's realization.

krodha wrote:
I get a red flag when people take unqualified "teachers" seriously.

steve_bakr said:
That is not appropriate and is not possible in an absolute sense.

krodha wrote:
It is possible.

steve_bakr said:
I validated Jackson's Pointing Out instructions and they were authentic

krodha wrote:
No, they weren't, you've been swindled, sadly.

steve_bakr said:
in the sense that they could open a window to Rigpa.

krodha wrote:
Jackson doesn't understand what rig pa is, all he points out is the clarity of mind and then falls into nihilism thinking that is all that need be done.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
If there is no saguna Brahman it makes no sense to use "nirguna". And it follows from that there is no atman either.

frankc said:
Madhyamaka scholars did not deny that numerous passages describing an eternal substratum—much like the Vedic concept of brahman, the supreme reality—appeared in Buddhist sutras and tantras; there were just too many such passages to dismiss.

krodha wrote:
And what sūtras and tantras allude to something like an "eternal substratum"? I've never seen a sūtra or tantra say anything like that.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Like Malcolm said: weeds in an untended garden.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
monktastic said:
There may also be something else going on too.

In my experience, there are (legitimate) Dzogchen teachers who explicitly do not call out -- or even seem to acknowledge -- the distinction. Tsoknyi R. sometimes hedges with the terms "baby" or "conceptual" rigpa. From my (very limited) experience, it may be because the more attention is drawn to the distinction, the more it prolongs worry or doubt in a certain kind of practitioner. Admittedly, maybe other practitioners will have the opposite problem. But I sometimes wonder if it's helpful to talk so much about this stuff online.

krodha wrote:
I suppose it would depend on the student. I'm sure if a teacher senses that a particular student is going to fixate on the distinction and allow doubt and worry to compromise their practice then it may be wiser to simply point out the so-called "baby rigpa" and let them feel comfortable and confident with that.

I personally don't see that as all that useful since it's sort of sugar coating the situation, but in the end who am I to judge?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
conebeckham said:
I think "Clarity" and "limpidity" mean "stainless," but "luminous" means something a bit different...it's more of a "radiance," which I relate to the awareness aspect, and not the emptiness aspect.

But you shouldn't listen to me, I think all of this needs to be heard at the feet of a master.

krodha wrote:
Tsoknyi Rinpoche does equate clarity with the "knowing" noetic capacity of the mind, granted he says clarity is the knowing and appearances that are known.
Sometimes I say emptiness in the clarity and sometimes emptiness in the appearance. These mean exactly the same thing because emptiness is emptiness in each case and because the clarity part and the appearance part come down to the same meaning. Clarity is the knower and appearances are what it knows. 

Now, when we do not know this emptiness and appearance we stay in duality and staying in duality we are confused. The definition of confusion is: "Not directly seeing the actuality of things."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Gsal. Ok, ty. Space is said to be "luminous", however. Even in semde they aren't synonymous?

krodha wrote:
"Luminous" just means "pure", "unstained", etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Actually iirc the Suzuki translation of Lankavatara specifically expounds that the Tathagatagarbha is, in fact, neither a self nor soul. In addition, belief in an Atman like thing is refuted at various points throughout the sutra in some detail. I have no idea how someone could read even the Suzuki translation and be under the impression that Lankavatara teaches a True Self in the way the term is being used here, without simply ignoring major parts of the sutra.

krodha wrote:
Eternalists can be impressively talented at ignoring vast amounts of information and cherry picking citations that can be bent to fit their narratives.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
Malcolm said:
rang byung rig pa is "self-originated rig pa", it means knowledge [ rig pa ] of your primordial state that originated [ byung ] from your own [ rang ] discovery of it.

krodha wrote:
Right, so seems to make for confusion when the term rig pa is used in referring to gnas gyu shes pa, which is simply a relative, everyday cognition. My point being that these various uses for the term rig pa are most likely the reason for people's confusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
Malcolm said:
RIg pa is not intrinsic to every experience. If it were, there could be no ma rig pa, and there would never be any need to point anything out at all.

krodha wrote:
Do you think confusion about this arises due to the fact that "rig pa" as a Tibetan term can also mean plain old, everyday "knowing"? I've seen some teachers use it in that context, such as when the relative knowing of mind as gnas gyu shes pa is referred to as rig pa in the context of gnas gyu rig gsum. This seems to create confusion and lends to the misconception that rig pa is always present.

For instance, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche uses rig pa like that, but then makes a point to differentiate two different types of rig pa, which strikes me as a plausible example of how so much confusion arises over this principle.

In the case of stillness [gnas pa], occurrence [gyu ba] and noticing [rig pa], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing awareness [rang byung rig pa] is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
...I suppose Malcolm would have to clarify there, being that it's his translation.

Malcolm said:
Phenomena is chos, dharmin; nonphenomena is chos min, i.e., dharmatā; the former is the relative, the latter is the ultimate. Since they are merged, there is no such thing as an ultimate phenomena, don dam chos, paramārthadharma.

In other words, the two truths of Madhyamaka are a deviation.

krodha wrote:
Thank you


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
catmoon said:
I still think that from an analytical point of view that suchness is such a horrifically ill-defined entity, that it defies inclusion in any kind of meaningful analysis, much as the God concept does.

krodha wrote:
Tathatā or "suchness" means "the way things really are" or "the actual way of things"... it's just a succinct way to denote the ultimate nature of phenomena.

When viewed that way it doesn't seem all too abstract or ill-defined, at least IMO.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
I don't think we are reading "nonphenomena" the same way.

asunthatneversets said:
Agreed. I think you desire to see "nonphenomena" a certain way that it really isn't, hence why you like to try to bend gzhan stong to fit that narrative (and in the process reify the rang stong straw man and relegate it to addressing what is allegedly "phenomenal").

smcj said:
I don't understand that at all.

What I'm saying is that "nonphenomena" sounds like a euphemism that somehow avoids the pitfall of "ultimate phenomena" to me. I'm ok with that.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps. I personally don't see why it would be addressing anything other than relative and ultimate natures but I suppose Malcolm would have to clarify there, being that it's his translation.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
I don't think we are reading "nonphenomena" the same way.

krodha wrote:
Agreed. I think you desire to see "nonphenomena" a certain way that it really isn't, hence why you like to try to bend gzhan stong to fit that narrative (and in the process reify the rang stong straw man and relegate it to addressing what is allegedly "phenomenal").


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
So-called ultimate a relative truths are species of cognition. The so-called "ultimate" is a direct experiential knowledge of the non-arising of the relative (in Dzogchen this knowledge is called "rig pa"), hence from that standpoint conditioned and unconditioned are non-dual and there's no need to analyze so-called conditioned entities in order to realize their emptiness (unconditioned nature). An endeavor of that nature becomes superfluous from the standpoint of the definitive Dzogchen view.
Semantics. If you want "nonphenomena" to mean something other than "ultimate phenomenon" that's fine with me.

krodha wrote:
I didn't suggest they are different.

smcj said:
Defining the problem away seems to be an acceptable way to deal with things.

krodha wrote:
Not sure what you're talking about.

smcj said:
It is "ultimate phenomena" that is the bug-a-boo.

krodha wrote:
Not really, dharmatā or the unconditioned [ultimate] nature of phenomena is quite straightforward.

smcj said:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ ultimate phenomenon ”.

krodha wrote:
Yes, precisely.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
The passage is saying that there is nothing to analyze from the standpoint of the experiential view [lta ba] of Dzogchen because dharmas and dharmatā are known to be neither the same nor different.
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable...
So being "merged and inseparable" means something other than they are the same?

krodha wrote:
It means that for a yogin resting in that view there is no distinction between relative and ultimate. All that is perceived is what we (from the standpoint of the relative) would call "ultimate truth", but for the adept who is resting in that view no distinction can be made, nor would a distinction be warranted or necessary.

So-called ultimate a relative truths are species of cognition. The so-called "ultimate" is a direct experiential knowledge of the non-arising of the relative (in Dzogchen this knowledge is called "rig pa"), hence from that standpoint conditioned and unconditioned are non-dual and there's no need to analyze so-called conditioned entities in order to realize their emptiness (unconditioned nature). An endeavor of that nature becomes superfluous from the standpoint of the definitive Dzogchen view.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
The gzhan stong and rang stong dichotomy is really altogether extraneous to what is being pointed out in the passage above.
I thought that might be the case. But in any event, read from a my perspective, it is in accord with my thinking.

krodha wrote:
The passage is saying that there is nothing to analyze from the standpoint of the experiential view [lta ba] of Dzogchen because dharmas and dharmatā are known to be neither the same nor different.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.
I like that quote. When I hear it said, when they are correctly understood, both Shentong and Rangtong end up being the same thing, that's what I understand it to mean. I'm not sure that is how it is intended, but that's how I read it.

krodha wrote:
Why? Because you think so-called gzhan stong applies to "nonphenomena" and so-called rang stong applies to "phenomena"? That isn't true at all.

The gzhan stong and rang stong dichotomy is really altogether extraneous to what is being pointed out in the passage above.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 4th, 2015 at 11:32 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Self or No-Self
Content:
krodha wrote:
Self and no-self are not really the issue in Dzogchen.

Dzogchen is concerned with an ignorance of one's nature [skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa] and a knowledge of one's nature [skt. vidyā, tib. rig pa].

Buddhism in general (including Dzogchen) really jettisons the whole idea of a self, and instead focuses on afflictive causes and conditions. Ignorance (cause) and the habitual tendencies of accepting and rejecting (conditions) are the problem, so to speak. So instead of worrying about a self, the point is to overturn ignorance through recognizing one's nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Self or No-Self
Content:
Pinus said:
Can anyone help clarifying, whether the self (or rather the no-self) is the same as shunyataa (or ka dag) in the Dzogchen-view? There seem to be conflicting opinions in Buddhism, whether the aatman (pure self) is the same as shunyataa (perhaps out of concern that one may confuse it with the ordinary ego or ideas of self).

krodha wrote:
The idea of an unconditioned ātman in Buddhism is really a fringe notion that is primarily relegated to a few East Asian Buddhist sects. Indian and Tibetan systems, including Dzogpachenpo do not promulgate a view of that nature. There is no such thing as a pure self "ātman" in Dzogchen.

A "self" in terms of Dzogchen is nothing more than a designation that is imputed onto various habitual patterns of ignorance and grasping. As a result of those karmic tendencies and ignorance the misconception of a (conditioned) subjective individual entity [self] and an outer environment [world] both arise.

Ka dag is merely a way to communicate that the allegedly conditioned phenomena we experience from the standpoint of ignorance, are actually unconditioned and have always been unconditioned. We simply fail to recognize this and so we relate to our delusion and suffer.

Pinus said:
Other terms are also used, e.g. rang stong (self-empty).

krodha wrote:
Rang stong and gzhan stong are not really relevant to the Dzogchen view. So-called "rang stong" is simply a straw man moniker that was attributed to traditional Madhyamaka by those who adhere to the so-called "gzhan stong" view.

Pinus said:
So, considering just the Dzogchen-view (ignoring other Buddhist ways of looking): is the aatman or self considered to be the same as shunyataa?

krodha wrote:
Śūnyatā would be pointing to the fact that a self cannot be found due to a "self" being nothing more than a confused inference that ultimately refers to nothing (as a self is nothing that is truly findable when sought). We can implement the idea of a "self" in everyday activities, and refer to ourselves as a self, this is called a "conventional self". That convention only becomes a problem when we believe that it actually refers to something real. So it is the misconception of a truly substantial self (whether pure or impure) that is negated.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 29th, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
Pinus said:
Thanks for your straight-forward answer, Gyurme!

So would you then say that the term Shunyata, as it is used in Dzogchen teachings, denotes the state of consciousness (or state of mind) that allows one to subsequently realize/understand/recognize one's true nature by remaining in it, which then is what is called Rigpa?

krodha wrote:
Śūnyatā in Dzogchen is called "ka dag", which is the emptiness of consciousness i.e., the nature of mind. A direct, experiential knowledge of that nature is called rig pa.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 29th, 2015 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Kaccāni said:
For Nagarjuna one would need the original phrases, as he was apparently constantly playing with the ambiguity of svabhava as identity and causal independence and a translation may not catch that.

krodha wrote:
Nāgārjuna was quite clear in what he meant by svabhāva, there was no ambiguity involved.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
truly

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
If we say any "x is/isn't truly y", e.g. "arising is/isn't truly nonarising" or "emptiness is/isn't beyond elaboration" we still haven't unified the two truths.


krodha wrote:
On the contrary, we have unified the two truths, since non-arising is freedom from the four extremes. This does not mean appearances cease, we are not advocating for an inert void... appearances manifest, but are devoid of self-nature, illusory, this is the union of the two-truths.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
We're still pulling back the curtain. Same as "maya is/isn't truly atman".


krodha wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Because, the two truths themselves, both arising and non-arising, are DOs - by definition.

krodha wrote:
No, "arising" is a misconception of ignorance, and as a result of that initial misconception the duality of existence and non-existence ensues, because the conditioned entities that are mistaken as having "arisen" must now exist and are then susceptible to a cessation of existence, whereby they would naturally "not-exist."

When that ignorance is uprooted, the perception that phenomena have arisen is overturned, and thus it is realized that appearances have been free from the extremes of existence and non-existence from the very beginning.

Dependent origination is simply the fact that no conditioned entity can be found to exist independently of causes and conditions. Because for something to truly exist, it must do so independently of cause and condition. Since an independent and inherent existence of this nature is impossible, we state that conditioned entities are dependently originated, and therefore they ultimately do not originate at all (hence they are empty).

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
It's directly related to the theism idea. It doesn't matter whether the x and y is arising/non-arising or maya/atman.

krodha wrote:
I don't follow.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Saying "arising is/isn't truly nonarising" is like putting up a target to hit. Or like taking out a piece of paper and drawing a "no" on it.

krodha wrote:
No, it actually isn't. Stating that dependently arisen entities do not ultimately arise is the very definition of dependent origination. This sentiment is found throughout various expositions...

Mañjuśrī states:

Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise.

Candrakīrti affirms this sentiment:

The perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."

And Nāgārjuna follows suit:

What originates dependently is unoriginated!

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Exactly the same target as "maya is/isn't truly atman".

Whereas: the egolessnesses aren't really two but two "fold", i.e. there's no dependence at all. No arising or non-arising. Not possible.

No curtain to pull back. No target to put up. No paper. No "truly". No "beyond".

krodha wrote:
I'm sorry but I can't make sense of what you are trying to say.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
that which originates dependenly does not originate at all.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
That can't be right, since being nonexistent is a conceptual elaboration pertaining to the appearances of DO.

krodha wrote:
Non-arising [anutpada] is not non-existence. Something must first exist, and then cease to exist in order to be non-existent (unless were talking about horns on a hare or hair on a tortoise, etc). Since dependently originated entities never truly originate to begin with, they are free from the four extremes (although by default this arguably means they are indeed "non-existent" appearances i.e., illusions).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
? Parabhava is "defeat".

krodha wrote:
Parabhāva is dependent existence, it is a guise for inherent existence [svabhāva].


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Emptiness and dependent origination are synonymous.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Not necessarily. According to the union of the two truths we say the appearances of DO are in reality beyond conceptual elaboration. Is that the same as saying that both self and phenomena are already absent of any reality?

krodha wrote:
I don't follow.

Emptiness and dependent origination are synonymous because that which originates dependenly does not originate at all.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Often times when people claim to be discussing dependent origination [pratityasamutpada] they are actually referring to dependent existence [parabhava].


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 27th, 2015 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
In Buddhism, the central principle is "emptiness" or sunyata.

Kaccāni said:
In Madhyamaka.

Otherwise, the unifying principle would probably be "dependent origination".

krodha wrote:
Emptiness and dependent origination are synonymous.

Also, you would be incorrect to state that emptiness as a central principle is relegated to Madhyamaka, as there is no Buddhist view that does not center itself around emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 27th, 2015 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
muni said:
I wanted to answer on the question whether similar or not, but I am stuck with " similar".

krodha wrote:
An unfortunate misconception.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 27th, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
The basis [gzhi] in Dzogpachenpo and the Brahman of Vedanta are nothing alike. Anyone who says they are is unfortunately uneducated on the subject.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 27th, 2015 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
In fact, modern traditional Advaita uses the same "dependent origination" formula as the Pali Suttas to argue that consciousness is primary.

krodha wrote:
A genuine view of dependent origination does not place consciousness as primary. Dependent origination does not advocate for a unilateral dependency, but rather bilateral dependencies which turn out to be implications more than anything truly valid.

If one is attempting to implement the view of dependent origination in order to arrive at a position where consciousness is "primary" then they have failed to understand dependent origination.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 14th, 2015 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Direct introduction. What is it?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
No need to bow out though.

krodha wrote:
Especially if you need a place to stay; dzogchungpa has a five-star bed and breakfast.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 14th, 2015 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Direct introduction. What is it?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Pertinent factoid: the term "direct introduction" is actually derived from the Tibetan phrase ngo rang thog du sprad which, according to Lopön Malcolm, roughly translates to "a direct self-encounter with [one's] state [lit. face]."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 14th, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Direct introduction. What is it?
Content:
Astus said:
Zen teaches sudden enlightenment, Dzogchen does not.

alpha said:
That is not strictly true.

krodha wrote:
It isn't true at all actually. Awakening [bodhi] or "enlightenment" is always sudden, as it is a sudden realization or epiphany that occurs due to a cessation of ignorance.

However awakening is not buddhahood, and that is a crucial and key point to make. There is no system that teaches sudden buddhahood, as that is impossible. So both Zen and Dzogchen would be equal in the sense that they both are able to actualize sudden awakening.

That being said, the methods to actualize said awakening, and the paths that ensue after said awakening would undoubtedly differ.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 12th, 2015 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: New forum: Dharma Paths Practice Community
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I really don't see mahayana and vajrayana practice being outside the scope of this forum.  There's only one dharma.   I've seen the four visions of togal related to the four noble truths.  It's as compatible as we make it and understand it.

krodha wrote:
Right, but no practitioner in their right mind is going to discuss that in a public forum. That's one of the other reasons it won't work out well for Vajrayāna practitioners, samaya. No one is going to openly broadcast their practices and activities to strangers and practitioners of other yānas who have no connection to Secret Mantra. Discussing view (within reason) is one thing, that occurs daily here on Dharma Wheel and elsewhere, but practice is something entirely different.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 12th, 2015 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: New forum: Dharma Paths Practice Community
Content:
krodha wrote:
As it is right now it seems like it should all be relegated to one section that focuses on Theravadin practice. And then perhaps have two other sections for Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. That may defeat the idea of a "pan-buddhist" forum to have those different sections, but as it stands right now it does not cater to Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna so well.

All in all I can't really see renunciant paths and tantric transformative paths mixing very well, to say nothing of the path of self-liberation, so I suspect this new site in its current trajectory will really just turn into a Dhammawheel part 2.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 8th, 2015 at 11:32 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
From "Longchenpa's Advice From the Heart": With the thought of preserving the purity of the Teaching
You may engage in discussions, defending your opinion and refuting that of others;
Yet in this way you create disturbing thoughts.
Remain silent! This is my advice from the heart.

krodha wrote:
Yes, well that would be ideal. Yet even Longchenpa (in his rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso) criticized individuals who hold views like Jax, calling such views "the utmost nihilism" belonging to those who had "entered the path of the most inferior" and even went as far as to state that they aren't followers of the dharma.

So while I'm sure we can all agree that it is better to just mind our own business and tend to our own practice/conduct, at the same time those who are sincerely interested in the teachings deserve to know if a teacher is questionable.

I mean, Kongtrul said to sever ties with teachers who deviate from the proper teachings even if you have already formed a relationship, and Padmasambhava said establishing a connection with an unexamined teacher is like jumping off of a cliff. I feel there is a time and place to be quiet and a time and place to speak.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 8th, 2015 at 7:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Matt J said:
How do you know what Jackson knows "experientially?"

krodha wrote:
From interacting with him off and on for some years now. The way he presents his view and the nature of his insight is not indicative of having recognized the nature of mind... otherwise he would not present his teachings in the way that he does.

Also, he has expressed doubts about his own experience before, which is a clear sign that he hasn't had authentic insight regarding his nature, as there is no way to have doubt if one has truly actualized a legitimate knowledge of their state.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 8th, 2015 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
zenman said:
Malcolm's point about parrots and garudas is spot on but apart of that what Tulku Urgyen says and what Jackson says are exactly the same. Whether it is entirely experiential for Jackson is another matter.

krodha wrote:
You are correct, it isn't experiential for Jackson and so he ends up teaching through his limitations. For example, when Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche speaks of "thought-free wakefulness" he is speaking of "non-conceptual primordial wisdom [ye shes]". In contrast, when Jackson speaks of "thought free wakefulness" he is pointing to the mere fact that the movement of thought does not effect or impede upon our relative, everyday, afflicted cognizance... and this is because Jackson has never recognized the definitive nature of mind, so he settles for a provisional form of rigpa in the form of "gnas gyu shes pa" or "the mere knowing of the stillness and movement of mind" and he then parades this as ye shes when it is nothing more than dualistic consciousness [rnam shes].

So Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is talking about something completely different. And incidentally there is a quote from Tulku Urgyen where he compares the definitive view of rigpa (that he is pointing to) to the relative view of rigpa (such as the one Jackson promotes) and he says the difference between the two is like the earth and the sky, meaning: they are worlds apart.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 8th, 2015 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Malcolm said:
Being a parrot is relatively easy. Living that knowledge is not so easy. There are a lot of Dzogchen parrots, not so many Dzogchen garudas.

tomamundsen said:
Sure. But if one has faith in the Dzogchen teachings and continues to apply themselves in the practice, they will eventually get there.

krodha wrote:
He means parrot teachers vs. the small handful of teachers who are the real McCoy.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 8th, 2015 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
zenman said:
Tulku Urgyen's quote btw wonderfully has lead us back to the original topic! I bet that doesn't happen very often after over 120 messages He says that when thoughtfree wakefulness grows longer and longer and all the way up to 24/7 then one has attained great perfection. That is precisely Jackson Peterson's message as well, though he is not an authorised dzogchen teacher.

krodha wrote:
No, Jackson is not taking about what Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is discussing. I've spent quite some time hearing what Jackson has to say in other forums and engaging in debate with him etc., he is not pointing to what Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is discussing in that excerpt... far from it.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 7th, 2015 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I hold Chogyal Namkhai Norbu in high regard, so I must agree. As he said, we are dealing with words and concepts. I am sure he would have no problem if I say that there is a provisional sense and an Absolute sense. In "The Supreme Source," he writes much about the relative or provisional in relation to the Absolute.

krodha wrote:
Relative and ultimate truths are both species of cognition in Mahāyāna and they are also species of cognition in Dzogchen where relative truth becomes ma rig pa and ultimate truth becomes rig pa.

steve_bakr said:
The text of "The Supreme Source" cuts through all provisional teachings and what remains is "Pure and Total Consciousness" only.

krodha wrote:
The kun byed rgyal po is spoken from the point of view of Samantabhadra, which means the exposition is given from the standpoint of the ultimate. "Pure and total consciousness" is translating the Tibetan term "byang chub sems" which is "bodhicitta" i.e., the sems sde term for the nature of mind [sems nyid].

steve_bakr said:
It cuts through every practice and belief dearly held.

krodha wrote:
Not really. It is simply speaking from the standpoint of one's nature.

steve_bakr said:
This text says that none of these cherished "provisional" practices are adequate unless one arrives at "Pure and Total Consciousness."

krodha wrote:
Right, because the Dzogchen view [lta ba] is that of ye shes or a pristine consciousness that apperceives one's nature.

steve_bakr said:
There is nothing to meditate on and no meditation other than relaxing effortlessly in "Pure and Total Consciousness,"

krodha wrote:
Which is only true if you are resting directly in equipoise [mnyam bzhag]. Beginners who have yet to recognize their nature cannot rest in equipoise, so there is meditation to do. Many people read statements of this nature which are made from the standpoint of wisdom [ye shes] and they mistake this as applying to your relative condition and then decide there's nothing to do and no meditation or practice required. This is called "nihilism".

steve_bakr said:
which if mistakenly, I relate to Rigpa and the nature of mind, clear and empty. I am willing to accept provisional terminology but the provisional is not where I am living, simply because I have too little time left to live.

krodha wrote:
You cannot just decide that you don't live in the relative condition. You either have recognized your nature and you rest in that knowledge or you don't. That knowledge is a direct, experiential condition, like tasting sugar. You cannot simply decide "I'm tasting sugar" if you aren't. And likewise you cannot simply decide you are resting in the natural state of you aren't. If you are not, which applies to all of us essentially, then you have much to do in terms of practice and meditation.

steve_bakr said:
If provisionally Rigpa is a knowing or the experience of mind's nature, in Absolute terms the experiencer, experience, and experienced are inseparable. This is what I have been trying to say. Guru Padmasambhava says this and I am certain that Chogyal Namkhai Norbu said the same thing when appropriate.

krodha wrote:
This isn't really an appropriate use of "provisional" since both a knowledge of the nature of mind and a cessation of dualistic cognition are one and the same.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek M,

The experience could be "similar", but not the words. The words seems to give, possible different interpretations /explanations etc. Well that is just the point here.

krodha wrote:
"Knowledge" is simply more accurate. Everyone has awareness, my cat has awareness. But very few have a working knowledge [rig pa] of their nature.

JLA has said he also prefers "discernment", so there is an element of recognition and an experiential knowledge derived from recognition that is involved with the term "rig pa". "Awareness" fails to capture that.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 3:13 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
zenman said:
Here is Norbu Rinpoche's answer. Because he answered personally to me in the latter part of his message, I will only post the first part/sentence of it.
"If Jackson is SMS Base teacher,  you can follow about these teaching, bu not neccssary to you considering that
are becoming a student of Jackson...

With many Tashi Delegs     NN."

... from here he goes on to discuss my relationship with him, Norbu, which I do not feel appropriate to post here in a public forum.

What is SMS Base?

krodha wrote:
Rinpoche is saying if Jackson is a Santi Maha Sangha Base teacher then you can follow him (Jax isn't an SMS teacher so this doesn't apply). And if he was (hypothetically) an SMS teacher and you followed him it wouldn't be necessary to consider yourself a student of Jackson's, because you would be Rinpoche's student.

He doesn't know who Jackson is. It is pretty clear he never gave Jax permission to teach anything.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Hint: maybe you don't know what context is being referred to and therefore you can't understand how they could be identical.

krodha wrote:
Hint: the context is clearly stated in the excerpt you cited.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
All it says is that in "one particular context" the gzhi and rig pa are "identical", although I don't agree that they're identical ...

dzogchungpa said:
Hmm, I wonder what that context might be?

krodha wrote:
What do you mean? It is the context I just referenced where the basis is recognized and becomes the path. That is when rig pa directly cognizes the three wisdoms and expresses itself as ye shes.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I would agree that ground is one way to describe Rigpa. Rigpa is very deep and all-pervasive.

asunthatneversets said:
"Ground" is a bad translation of the Tibetan term "gzhi", which means "base" or "basis" as in the threefold scheme of basis [gzhi], path [lam] and result [bras bu].

Gzhi is not rig pa.

dzogchungpa said:
Take it up with EPK. Anyway, in that book, it's definitely synonymous with "nature of mind", as used in that book: In this book I will outline ground, path and fruition in the hope of helping you gain some understanding about our basic nature, your own mind. This nature of mind is always present, and it can be called different names: the natural state, the basic nature, the real condition, the enlightened essence, or buddha-nature. This basic nature is what is meant by ground.

krodha wrote:
All it says is that in "one particular context" the gzhi and rig pa are "identical", although I don't agree that they're identical, one can say that once the basis is recognized it is experientially known and therefore inseparable from one's knowledge [rig pa], whereby the basis then becomes the path [lam]. Lest we forget the basis [gzhi] is only the "basis" as long as it is not recognized, however once recognized the basis ceases to be the basis and becomes the path. So the basis is not some transcendent, ontological reality that is truly real, it is a literary device.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I would agree that ground is one way to describe Rigpa. Rigpa is very deep and all-pervasive.

krodha wrote:
"Ground" is a bad translation of the Tibetan term "gzhi", which means "base" or "basis" as in the threefold scheme of basis [gzhi], path [lam] and result [bras bu].

Gzhi is not rig pa.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
steve_bakr said:
The description of Rigpa as nature of mind occurs in the works, "Natural Perfection: Longchenpa's Radical Dzogchen," "Original Perfection: Vairotsana's Five Early Transmissions," "Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness" (Padmasambhava), and elsewhere.

krodha wrote:
Yes but can you cite where this is said specifically? By preferably posting the quotation which directly says this. The request for you to post the citation is to see if you can actually produce said statement, as people who know these texts and the works of Longchenpa and Padmasambhava know that they most likely didn't say this. The point is to figure out if the error is on the translator's side or if you simply misread or misconstrued what you are reading.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
I guess so that this Nature is beyond Rigpa?

krodha wrote:
One's "nature" is the unconditioned nature of mind (i.e., the basis a.k.a., the three wisdoms, as Malcolm pointed out above). Which is that this cognizant faculty we refer to as our "mind" is ultimately unborn or non-arisen i.e., empty.

We can either recognize that nature or we can fail to recognize it. If we have recognized it then we have a working knowledge of it, and that knowledge is called "rig pa". If on the other hand we fail to recognize that nature, then we are ignorant of it, and that lack of knowledge is called "ma rig pa" or "ignorance".

So there is either (i) a knowledge of one's nature or (ii) an ignorance of one's nature, but rigpa isn't one's nature, it is simply the knowledge that ensues from recognizing that nature.

I'm curious about this citation that steve_bakr says exists which states that rigpa is the nature of mind. What context that would be said in, or if it is a mistranslation, or if steve_bakr simply misread.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I am correct, by the way, in reporting that Dzogchen masters such as Longchenpa define Rigpa as the nature of mind.

Malcolm said:
Citation please?

krodha wrote:
Bump.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 5th, 2015 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
From Jean-Luc Achard:

There is never enough reading.

dzogchungpa said:
From Chögyal Namkhai Norbu:

It would be senseless to think that one should spend one's whole life accumulating words, like a bee flying from one flower to another gathering nectar.
"

krodha wrote:
He means solely accumulating words and not putting them to practice. That isn't what Jean-Luc is saying.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 5th, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I am studying an oral introduction to the nature of our mind by Guru Padmasambhava whose short title is, "Self-Liberation Through Seeing Clearly With Naked Awareness" and I will pay close attention to the nuances. This work mentions Rigpa in connection with the nature of mind and the repeated phrase is "Intrinsic Awareness." Whether this is given as the nature of mind or its characteristic is perhaps a matter of semantics.

krodha wrote:
It isn't semantics. When rig pa doesn't recognize its nature it is called "the clarity [cognizance] of mind". Clarity alone is the characteristic of mind. Clarity and emptiness (non-dual) is the nature of mind.

Being able to notice its thought-occurrence and stillness doesn’t mean one knows the real nature of this mind. It is simply the ability to detect when there are thoughts and when there is not the presence and absence of thought. This is called ‘knowing the character of the mind’. It is not knowing buddha nature.
— Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

steve_bakr said:
Suffice it to say that Intrinsic Awareness and the nature of mind are inseparable. They are nondual, just as clarity and emptiness are inseparable.

krodha wrote:
Right, because rig pa is what knows the nature of mind. And rig pa is then called "ye shes".

steve_bakr said:
Language only goes so far.

krodha wrote:
This essentially goes without saying.

steve_bakr said:
The more we get into definitions and classifications as such, the more we impose limitations on what is limitless.

krodha wrote:
This is completely false.

From Jean-Luc Achard:

There is never enough reading. All the main masters of the past and recent times that one venerates from Longchenpa to Jigme Lingpa, from Dru Gyelwa to Kundrol Rinpoche, from Khyentse Wangpo to Shardza, from Khenpo Gangshar to Sakya Tridzin, from HH the Dalai Lama to Yongdzin Rinpoche (too many names to list), all of them have spent a gazillion sessions of their practice in formal study. I don't think this has caused them any obscurations. I don't buy a single minute the legends of brainless yogis reaching Rainbow Body as a paradigm to follow for westerners without a proper buddhist/bon complete education. The Dharma is one of the three Jewels, it does not cause obscurations. I would add to this that ignorance comes from not recognizing one's state but it is maintained, developed and intensified by the absence of study. It is only among lay people in the West that there is this fancy that one will reach anywhere on the path of Dharma while despising texts and teachings.

and,

There are other forums where people are proud of their ignorance. I am not. I am ashamed of it when I compare it to the knowledge of my masters. I try every single day to spend my time 50/50 in between practice and study. Study never let me down. I can tell you, for having met people who reject study in the past 35 years, that not a single of them has a clue about what Rigpa is. You can spend a gazillion years on your cushion, if the correct understanding is not there, you simply waste your time. You never waste your time reading the teachings the masters so kindly composed for the past 2 000 years. So reading texts after texts is a correct way to chase ignorance away. I don't think anybody here claims to be a great vidyadhara. However, I have met countless people with a dramatically superficial "knowledge" of the teachings who claim to be advanced on the path and who actually ignore the stages of that path. Lopon said this once :"I prefer someone who has clearly understood the state of Dzogchen, even intellectually, as opposed to a brainless yogi able to stand upside-down on the tip of a grass with one single finger. I know which of the two can have a chance at recognizing the state in the Bardo."

steve_bakr said:
The nature of mind is like space. It has no boundaries, no center, no location. We can only say, "It is like this, like that." But we cannot say, "This is it." When we say the nature of mind, we remain nondual. When we say the mind has a characteristic, we separate the mind on one side and its characteristic on the other.

krodha wrote:
The mind's characteristic is clarity [cognizance]. The characteristic of the mind is to cognize. The nature of the mind is the emptiness of said cognizance. In all Dzogchen texts there is a clear separation of samsaric mind and wisdom.

steve_bakr said:
Perhaps, in the Dzogchen sense, we must realize that what we are talking about are our own mental constructs, which are not real. We must experience the nature of mind directly to find out what it is like. Granted, we must use language, no question, albeit language is not reality. At best, language is a pointer. Buddha is nothing other than our mind.

krodha wrote:
Again this is a fairly redundant point that goes without saying.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 5th, 2015 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
zenman said:
If he taught meditation practices like trekcho and thogal going straight and keeping to the point, then sure I'd probably tune in too.

krodha wrote:
This is akin to saying "I'm interested in building houses but don't want to bother learning how to lay a strong foundation."


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 5th, 2015 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
zenman said:
Thanks for the advice for joining Norbu's organisation but this is not for me.

krodha wrote:
You don't have to join his organization to watch webcasts. And even then it's not like you're drinking the kool-aid as its pretty laid back... you simply tune in when there's a webcast, for free.

I'm sure most here simply figure that you have an interest in the teachings, so why not receive teachings from a genuine master.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 5th, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
random person zenman quoted said:
I felt his presence and method created a palpable pull back into "my" nature, which is apparently open awareness-knowing-clarity, unchanging regardless of any other experience that may or may not be arising, to no one.

krodha wrote:
This person sounds like they have no idea what they're talking about, and not to mention ridiculous (they sound like they're regurgitating Jaxchen).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 5th, 2015 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Rig pa is not the nature of mind [sems nyid], but rather simply "knowledge". Rig pa is expressed as dualistic consciousness [rnam shes] or wisdom a.k.a. pristine consciousness [ye shes] depending on whether the nature of mind is recognized or not.

steve_bakr said:
I appreciate your nuanced reply. Rather than call Rigpa "knowledge," I prefer to say, "awareness with knowledge." The most common translation of "Rigpa" that I have seen is "Intrinsic Awareness." I still associate the nature of mind with Intrinsic Awareness, that being its natural state without obscurations.

krodha wrote:
The issue is that you can have awareness without knowledge, but you cannot have rig pa without knowledge. Rig pa is the "knowing" capacity of a mind.

The nature of mind [sems nyid] is defined as the "emptiness of clarity" or "non-dual emptiness and clarity" but it is never defined as "awareness" since awareness would be precisely the clarity [gsal ba] mentioned in the aforementioned definition. Clarity or awareness alone is just mind, and more specifically a dualistic mind. That clarity or awareness has to be recognized as empty, meaning "non-arisen", "unreal" etc., if one is to recognize the nature of mind. Clarity and awareness by themselves are often called the "characteristic of mind" and not the "nature of mind".

steve_bakr said:
I am a tiny bit uncomfortable here with the word "consciousness" out of the fear of introducing subcategories such as "subconscious" or "unconscious." Honestly, the other poster is correct in prefering "awareness" to "consciousness" because all the Dzogchen literature and texts that I have seen use "awareness," specifically "Intrinsic Awareness." The word "intrinsic" signifies that awareness is intrinsic to mind; that is, awareness is the nature of mind.

krodha wrote:
In Buddhism consciousness [rnam shes pa] is a term that is used to denote a threefold species of cognition consisting of a (i) sensory organ, (ii) a sensory function, and (iii) a sensory object. Which means consciousness is generally an afflicted, dualistic cognition. The knowing [rig pa] capacity of a mind which fails to recognize its own nature and/or the nature of phenomena, mistakes itself and appearances to be truly real and substantial, this is how dualistic mind and the mistaken notion of objective phenomena arise. The arising of that subject-object split is the arising of dualistic consciousness [rnam shes], which is rig pa when confused by its own appearances.

Awareness is a popular translation for rig pa, or was for quite some time. It just strikes me as somewhat vague.

Awareness is not the nature of mind, rather it is the "characteristic of mind".


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 5th, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Rig pa is not the nature of mind [sems nyid], but rather simply "knowledge". Rig pa is expressed as dualistic consciousness [rnam shes] or wisdom a.k.a. pristine consciousness [ye shes] depending on whether the nature of mind is recognized or not.

kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek A,

- Can we replace here, pristine consciousness with awareness maybe ?
This because the experience in the latter practice is not based on consciousness .


Mutsug Marro
KY

krodha wrote:
"Awareness" wouldn't work for translating ye shes because while ye shes is a species of cognition, it is a very specific species that cognizes the dharmatā or non-arising of mind and/or phenomena. Which is why it is often translated as "wisdom".

Regular, everyday awareness is a dualistic cognition for sentient beings. I only threw "pristine consciousness" in there because I've seen that Malcolm has started to use it as a translation for ye shes instead of "wisdom", and I trust his judgement.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 4th, 2015 at 3:45 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
zenman said:
However, isn't gazing the actual practice of thogal after the mind and subconscious has been cleared in trekcho?

krodha wrote:
The "subconscious" has nothing to do with it. This is an example of what Jean-Luc was talking about in terms of the creation of obstacles. When a person who claims to be an authority such as Jackson begins to spin stories and incorporate principles such as the "subconscious" into his so-called teachings, people (functioning under the assumption that he knows what he's talking about) take this to be a genuine aspect of Dzogpachenpo, when it is nothing of the sort. And so this degrades the teaching and introduces foreign principles that then obfuscate the original intention and corrupt the instructions. And although this is a minor detail, when numerous minor details begin to stack up they become something bigger.

So this is an example of why intimate instruction from a qualified lama is so valuable. Jackson will only poison you, I would advise you to quickly abandon any and everything you've picked up from him and seek out a genuine and qualified teacher.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 4th, 2015 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: Natural State and Nature
Content:
krodha wrote:
Rig pa is not the nature of mind [sems nyid], but rather simply "knowledge". Rig pa is expressed as dualistic consciousness [rnam shes] or wisdom a.k.a. pristine consciousness [ye shes] depending on whether the nature of mind is recognized or not.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 4th, 2015 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
krodha wrote:
Zenman, here are a few examples of Jax's "teachings" that are highly questionable and in general go against the view that he claims to be teaching. Hearing even one of these absurd statements from a "Dzogchen teacher" should raise a huge red flag. For example...

Denying suffering:

No one has ever suffered.

Conflating dharmakāya and ye shes with the brahman of Vedanta:

Switch Dharmakaya Awareness for Brahman and it comes very close... very close to Dzogchen view.

primordial Wisdom is Brahman. The Buddha was an expression of Brahman.

Not understanding karma:

in Dzogchen karmic imprints or afflictions are themselves wisdoms needing no purification.

Denying convention:

There is NO conventional self.

Denying practice and stating the clarity of mind requires no refinement:

In the "practice" of Dzogchen Atiyoga, even the slightest trace of a practice being practiced is much too much! This includes the slight effort to be "mindful". Any practice, intention or effort of any kind is always "sem" or the karmic mind-self in action. Our natural knowing awareness is always perfect and requires no further realization or preliminary purification. Everything is simply left as-is, without the need to "leave it" as-is.

Denying guru yoga:

I don't recall Garab Dorje saying anything about Guru Yoga. Somebody else contrived that later. Nothing and no practice is required in Ati.

There is absolutely no need for guru yoga, it's a Mahayoga level practice not Ati.

Again expounding nihilism and denying practice and the path:

there is no entity that goes from lifetime to lifetime. There is no entity in this lifetime either. There is no one to benefit from practice or to progress. There is no self in Buddhism, so who is there to benefit from practice?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 3rd, 2015 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
... Jean-Luc Achard to cease all discussion of Dzogchen on his forum... Another master is Chögyal Namkhai Norbu.

zenman said:
Okey. What forum is referred here? What did Norbu say?

krodha wrote:
Jean-Luc's forum is http://forumdzogchen.forumactif.com/

As for Chögyal Namkhai Norbu: I believe when Jackson first started "teaching" Dzogchen he claimed that Norbu Rinpoche gave him permission to teach sems sde, but who knows if this is actually true... and it ultimately doesn't matter now anyway since Jackson presently gives instruction for any and everything from sems sde to men ngag sde without any qualification or permission.

Magnus wrote to ChNN:

A person called Jackson Peterson (ejackpete @ aol.com), has a group called DzogchenPractice on Yahoo Groups. He claim to have permission from you to teach Semde,is this true?

He also claim to be able to give direct introduction by means of e-mail. For me this seem highly unlikely, could you please comment on this?

And received the following answer:

Dear Magnus,

Thanks for your info. I'll inform him that he is going
wrong direction.

With many Tashu Delegs NN.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 3rd, 2015 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
That fellow (Jackson Peterson) ... has been denounced by masters such as Lopön Tenzin Namdak.

zenman said:
Please provide a quote or a source on this? Who other masters have denounced him? Names please.

krodha wrote:
Lopön Tenzin Namdak told Jean-Luc Achard to cease all discussion of Dzogchen on his forum in order to ensure that Jax does not get ahold of any further information in regards to Lopön's teachings, as it is clear he is concerned there are samaya issues with allowing Jax to get ahold of his teachings. Another master is Chögyal Namkhai Norbu.

Jean-Luc writes:

Since somebody from this forum has been sending some posts I did on Dzogchen to Jax (or it may be that Jax is here under a log-in name that we have not identified yet), I have just been advised by my master [Lopön Tenzin Namdak] to avoid discussing anything related to Dzogchen that might be of use to Jax. This person is really a creator of obstacles. I have been for a very short period of time on his lists and helped the best I could and all the result was insults, despise and contempt from people (Jax and Roo) who overtly vomit on Lamas and who think they can guide people. 

Therefore I am sorry but I am not allowed to discuss these matters publicly on the forum and neither on PMs since, except for a few people who have disclosed openly their identity, I can't identify who is who behing these log-in names.

I also don't think a "secret forum" can be a solution because there are always leaks coming out one day or the other. This is not good for the lama, the teachings and not good for me. There are Protectors over these teachings and I don't want to be karmically involved in anything related to Jax.

So as i wrote in another post, i will only discuss matters related to Sutras, philosophy (logic mostly and nothing Dzogchen-related), history and literature.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 30th, 2015 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
zenman said:
I don't think this person is completely bad in his teachings even though he clearly has his own view which sure does seem like neo-advaita for the most part. I think he is somewhat sincere and that he doesn't purposefully lead his students astray.

krodha wrote:
Sure, he isn't purposefully leading them astray, but he is (leading them astray) if they are interested in pursuing Dzogpachenpo in any effective or meaningful way.

zenman said:
One thing that I did notice was that he likes when people agree with him and play around him like puppies, wagging their tails and asking him for more. It does look like some sort of ego-tripping that he probably isn't aware of himself. On the other hand, to comments that are not in accordance with his sayings, he denies and rejects them and is not willing to discuss them in a rational way.

krodha wrote:
Right, he creates an enclosed echo chamber where everyone parrots what he wants to hear back at him. And he then systematically removes dissenters. This is the reason why he limits his presence to closed groups where he can maintain constant control.

zenman said:
In those cases he always, without exception as far as I have seen, pulls out some neo-advaita and by doing so he kind of sets himself above others, or at least those who do not agree with what he says. Hence, his teachings are only understood by those who agree with the view of neo-advaita which is just silly play and waste of time for me.

krodha wrote:
What's more though is that his entire view is essentially Neo-Advaita as he makes all of the errors associated with such a view. He attacks mere imputation rather than underlying causes, he inserts the result into the basis, he clings to the ultimate and denies the path, he treats mere clarity as wisdom and the list goes on and on.

zenman said:
I never saw real dzogchen masters having any problems with expressing things in clear understandable language or speaking of the relativity of things. I am sure people with not much experience and discrimination of their own are easy targets for him.

krodha wrote:
Yes, he essentially preys on the same crowd that was caught up in the Neo-Nondual circuits around seven years ago.

zenman said:
Having said all of this there are also positive sides to him and his teachings. I don't think he is all bad apple. There are so many kinds of people seeking so many kinds of things here, like it or not. And there are many kinds of teachers too, some good, some not so good, some clearly harmful. Therefore, from my point of view, I don't think he is that bad and might actually be able to help some in their issues.

krodha wrote:
Sure, he can help some people in certain ways in their relative lives, but the main issue is that he states that he is teaching Dzogchen, and these people come away from interacting with him believing they've received something authentic. This is a problem.

zenman said:
Even though he is critical of many teachers out there, and has named a few of them, he does also refer to some sources other than him who are recommendable in the light of studying oneself and dzogchen. Because he has openly talked, in the limits of his own experience, about the methods and practice of tregchod and thogyal I actually think his offerings could help people who have enough exp of their own and discrimination.

krodha wrote:
No, he cannot help anyone in terms of Dzogchen because he does not teach Dzogchen. Also, he has no business giving teachings on tregchö or thögal since it is clear his experience in either department is that of a novice. He is doing far more harm than good when it comes to these matters.

zenman said:
It is always about ones own responsibility, you know.

krodha wrote:
Correct, and those with fortunate karmic connections to the teachings will stay away from him. It is just unfortunate that many are beguiled by his charade. The only positive aspect of this whole mess is that he introduces people to Dzogpachenpo, in that they encounter the name and teaching in general, but past that they do not receive Ati teachings and if they follow Jackson then they end up wasting a considerable amount of precious time. In the end I personally have no problem calling a spade a spade, Jackson has virtually nothing redeemable to offer and is a burden to the teachings and those who are unfortunate enough to cross his path.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 29th, 2015 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
zenman said:
Hello all

I came across this fellow in the internet who is a teacher of dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
That fellow (Jackson Peterson) doesn't teach Dzogchen for the record. He teaches some sort of Neo-Avaita wrought with eternalism and nihilism, and then attempts to dress his teaching up in Dzogchen drag by using Dzogchen vernacular and citing Dzogchen texts that he misconstrues.

He also has no permission to teach Dzogchen, very limited experience, and has been denounced by masters such as Lopön Tenzin Namdak. All in all he's one of the biggest charlatans on the Internet when it comes to Atiyoga. I would avoid him like the plague.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Introductory books for Ayurveda/Tibetan Medicine?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The Quintessence Tantras of Tibetan Medicine by Dr. Barry Clark


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
thought that kind of acceptance of an impersonal universal principle was more of a Tibetan development--or corruption--depending on who was talking.

krodha wrote:
What Tibetan developments are you suggesting propose an impersonal universal principle?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 4th, 2015 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
srivijaya said:
If it lacked any existence it could not possibly appear. It is dependent arisen, not without existence.

krodha wrote:
That which originates dependently does not ultimately originate, and is therefore free from the four extremes, which means it is without existence.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 4th, 2015 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Experiences with crazy wisdom?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Jean-Luc Achard on crazy wisdom:

There is no original, classical word corresponding to "crazy wisdom" in tibetan. It was coined very lately by Chogyam Trungpa, to justify a behavior which is not acceptable within Buddhism. As HH the Dalai Lama says, there is nothing "crazy" about wisdom, otherwise it would not be wisdom. I have personally met some masters who pretend to have this "crazy wisdom": they are just deluded people leading others to their own destruction. Lopon [Tenzin Namdak] once said about them : "It is generally an excuse for cultivating ego."

And on crazy yogis [smyon pas]:

Well, none of them [individuals in old Tibet] spoke of crazy wisdom, the expression was coined by Trungpa in the 1970s to justify his behavior. There was no wisdom at all in this. It's just the same old ranting from people trying to justify their addictions. In particular, trying to coin back the term from english (crazy wisdom) to tibetan, he made a weird choice, translating "crazy wisdom" as "ye shes 'chol ba". Ye shes is wisdom. 'Chol ba means to mix up, to make errors (in judgement), to be scattered, to be incoherent and raving, etc. There is no wisdom in 'chol-ba at all. I wish people who think they can teach, like Surya Das or K. Dowman, would stop referring to this nefarious concept because it has already led astray generations of westerners... Contrary to what Trungpa says, Dzogchen has nothing to do with smyon pas, not any of them reached Rainbow Bodies, whereas humble individuals who followed ethics and spent years in retreat practicing dzogchen instead of years of alcoholism did reach such a result.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
It should be noted that the term “Mahayana” here is not used in the
usual sense of the word, that is, Mahayana versus Hinayana. According
to the definition given in the discussion immediately following,
Mahayana designates Suchness or the Absolute. The title of
the text, the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, should therefore
be understood as the “Awakening of Faith in the Absolute,” not in
Mahayana Buddhism as distinguished from Hinayana Buddhism.

krodha wrote:
Although there is no "the absolute" in Buddhism.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 5:41 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm said:
In what way can things exist?

Wayfarer said:
In all the billions of ways that billions of things exist.

krodha wrote:
You're blowing my mind right now.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
So are you of the opinion that every Shentongpa simply does not understand the discussion? I find that to be

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure I would go as far as to say your view accurately represents "every Shentongpa"... it more accurately represents "every smcj", of which there happens to be only one.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
What he is saying is not going over my head.

krodha wrote:
It is, but that is alright.

smcj said:
I simply, and respectfully, disagree.

krodha wrote:
Which is my case in point. If you actually understood the implications involved with said disagreement then you wouldn't disagree.

smcj said:
However this disagreeing is with the understanding that it only goes as far as language can take the conversation.

krodha wrote:
Language can address the topic as precisely as needed and can do it successfully, as far as language needs to go. You can't simply hide behind the idea of an unenumerated ultimate nature, for this is no different than saying the description "sweet" is different than the actual experiential taste of sugar, which is a given, and doesn't corrupt the possibility of being clear and accurate in one's description of said experiential taste. Even though the direct, unenumerated, experiential taste of sugar is "inexpressible", said taste certainly isn't "sour". So there is both an unenumerated ultimate and an enumerated ultimate for this very reason. You are attempting to hide behind the idea of an unenumerated ultimate and are using that vague area as a platform to push your eternalist view, as eternalists usually do.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 8:13 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
I cannot see having an actual disagreement about the right way to characterize something that we agree is inconceivable and inexpressae.

krodha wrote:
Yet you still believe there is some sort of established and existent ultimate that is itself "inexpressible", and this means what Malcolm is saying is going over your head.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Compared to what? That doesn't avoid nihilism - that is nihilism.

krodha wrote:
No it isn't. Nihilism is clinging to a view of non-existence.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
The calculus doesn't add up. How can the Buddha have so clearly refuted this, and yet:

1) taught an unborn, undying knower or alayavijnana or bhavanga citta, which is very similar to the Advaita atman?

krodha wrote:
Ālayavijñāna is considered to be afflicted and is completely personal, as Malcolm pointed out above. It is not the transpersonal, ontological knower of Vedanta, and frankly does not resemble the purusa of Vedanta at all. You need to study these principles before you come to conclusions like this.

Matt J said:
2) established a set of teachings that led to the rise of the Chittamatra, which (under some interpretations anyway) seems very similar to to Advaita vedanta?

krodha wrote:
Cittamatra does not resemble Advaita at all.

Matt J said:
3) established a set of teachings that a leading Buddhist teacher was unable to separate the shentong Buddhist view from Advaita according to a dharma scholar and eyewitness?
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8318&p=102251&hilit=advaita+greg#p102251

krodha wrote:
Perhaps the gzhan stong of Dolbupa, but not the majority of gzhan stong. And truthfully, even Dolbupa states that his view is not commensurate with tīrthika views such as Advaita Vedanta.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Those are all later developments which, to a classicist, are degradations and corruptions of Dharma.

krodha wrote:
They aren't degradations or corruptions if they are properly understood.

smcj said:
Hence much discussion and confusion here at DW.

krodha wrote:
There certainly isn't confusion for those who understand these principles properly.

smcj said:
I side on the more modern (and Tibetan) perspective. Malcolm sides on the more classical/conservative (and Indian) perspective.

krodha wrote:
Again this alleged dichotomy that you often fall back on is a total fabrication that you have concocted. Your view is not "modern" at all, the whole "modern" versus "classical" thing is completely unfounded in every way.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I think 'luminosity' must be a metaphor for 'knowing' - mind is intrinsically knowing, and that 'knowing' is fundamental to its nature; but that 'knowing' is not an attribute of 'something', it is simply an intrinsic attribute of mind.

krodha wrote:
The "knowing" cognizance of mind is called "clarity" [gsal ba]. Clarity is susceptible to conditioning. The nature of mind as non-dual clarity and emptiness is the unconditioned luminosity [od gsal] of mind.

For the luminosity of mind to be directly known one has to recognize the emptiness of clarity, meaning the non-arising of the "knowing" or cognizance of mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
SOB, ASTNS, as much as it pains me to say this, I feel it is my duty to suggest that you two should get a room.

asunthatneversets said:
Post the jpeg or your plea goes unheard.

dzogchungpa said:
Oh, right, I forgot to mention that I have reserved such a room for you two here:


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
SOB, ASTNS, as much as it pains me to say this, I feel it is my duty to suggest that you two should get a room.

krodha wrote:
Post the jpeg or your plea goes unheard.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Again one sentence with no context.

This is only in reference to inherent enlightenment manifesting in the life of the sentient being, it is in no way saying that the Buddha nature is a part that you can use to create the unconditioned unborn Enlightenment.

asunthatneversets said:
As I've pointed out to you before "Inherent enlightenment [bodhi]" also makes zero sense.

Son of Buddha said:
Sure it makes zero sense............to you.

krodha wrote:
What do you mean? Are you meaning to suggest that you are inherently a bodhisattva or buddha, and have no need for the teachings at all? Because that is what "inherent enlightenment" would entail.

Son of Buddha said:
If everyone was inherently enlightened then samsara wouldn't even be an issue and there would be no reason for the buddhadharma.
nobody said the current individual had manifested their inherent Enlightenment. Enlightenment itself even from the Pali Canon standards has always been uncreated ,Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade,Unconditioned(Udana 8,3)

krodha wrote:
Firstly, Udana 8.3 is arguably describing the sopādhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa of an arhat, so it is for the most part irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly, Udana 8.3 is not describing 'bodhi', so your point is null.

Son of Buddha said:
This means that your Bodhi has never never been created or born and has always been Bodhi since beginningless time.

krodha wrote:
You do not seem to grasp what 'bodhi' means or entails. Your statement here is akin to saying "awakening in the morning from sleep has always been since beginningless time"... the statement doesn't make sense. Awakening [bodhi] is not "awakening" if you are not waking up to recognize something that was previously unrecognized. This is simple logic.

Again (and why this is so hard for you to grasp I have no idea), 'bodhi' is not your uncreated, unborn, unconditioned nature. 'Bodhi' is the event of awakening to directly and experientially cognize said nature. So you are confusing two different things.

Son of Buddha said:
This means that Enlightenment is not something you create it is only something that is revealed/manifested when all defilements are removed.

krodha wrote:
No, it means your nature is not something you create, your nature is what is revealed when all defilements are removed. And one must initially "awaken" [budh] to recognize that nature in order to follow through with a praxis that will remove any defilements that obscure said nature. So again, 'bodhi' is the event of awakening to recognize and directly know your uncreated nature... bodhi is not said uncreated nature, they are two different things.

Son of Buddha said:
Example while the person is still a sentient being the inherent enlightenment is obscured by defilements (you being one of them) and when the person IS a Buddha, then the inherent enlightenment has been seperated from the defilements that has been obscuring it.

krodha wrote:
Again, as stated above 'bodhi' is not your innate, unconditioned nature... bodhi is awakening to know that nature. If bodhi were "inherent" then one would always be in recognition of their nature, and the teachings would be superfluous because we would all be born as fully omniscient buddhas.

Son of Buddha said:
either way your Enlightenment has been unborn and uncreated from the beginning....that is inherent enlightenment.

krodha wrote:
No, your latent buddha-nature has been unborn and uncreated from the very beginning... enlightenment [bodhi] is the event of awakening to know that nature that has been unborn and uncreated from the very beginning.

You must understand that we have to initially awaken to recognize that nature, because it has been obscured by afflictive causes and conditions... you are not a buddha, you are not even a bodhisattva, so you must apply the teachings and awaken [budh] to know your unborn and uncreated nature. That event of awakening is called "enlightenment" [bodhi]... your nature is not bodhi.

Son of Buddha said:
So inherent enlightenment is an incorrect view.
Enlightenment is uncreated ,Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Unconditioned(Udana 8,3)

krodha wrote:
Udana 8.3 is describing the goal of the Śrāvakayāna, which is the sopādhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa or "nirvāṇa with remainder" of an arhat... it is the absorption cessation that bodhisattvas must awaken arhats from in order to allow them to continue on their paths towards buddhahood. Why you are continually citing this quote as a support for your baseless claim I'm not sure, but it has no relevance to the current discussion.

Son of Buddha said:
can you create your enlightenment?

krodha wrote:
Obviously, that is the point of choosing a practice that is suited for your capacity and applying it... the goal is to actualize 'bodhi' which is awakening to your uncreated nature.

Son of Buddha said:
nope it is uncreated,

krodha wrote:
Uncreated awakening means you are a fully omniscient buddha with no need for the buddhadharma whatsoever, and have been that way since beginningless time.

Son of Buddha said:
when was your enlightenment born??

krodha wrote:
It hasn't been for you or I... now, our respective natures being 'unborn' is another topic entirely. Our natures are not "enlightenment". We are only "enlightened" when we awaken to experientially know our unborn natures, respectively.

Son of Buddha said:
its not born Enlightenment has always been since beginningless time

krodha wrote:
That's impossible, but hopefully you got my point by now, the issue here is that your knowledge of the teachings is very unrefined, so you are confused by certain principles and are making a mess of things. I doubt you'll listen since your confirmation biases are so thick they are almost unprecedented in nature, but perhaps if we keep hammering away at this topic the light bulb will eventually turn on. We shall see...

Son of Buddha said:
when do we make our enlightenment and become buddha's?

krodha wrote:
When you choose a system and apply the practices associated with said system in a successful way.

Son of Buddha said:
we don't Enlightenment is not made by us

krodha wrote:
Well, it is, but if you want to keep insisting that you are a fully omniscient buddha you're welcome to... apologies in advance if no one believes you.

Son of Buddha said:
your enlightenment is like a mirror that is covered in dust all you have to do is remove the dust and the mirror that has been under it all along will be revealed.

krodha wrote:
No, your nature is like a mirror. Bodhi is the event of awakening to directly (and experientially) know that mirror-like nature.

Son of Buddha said:
"Enlightenment" or "awakening" [bodhi] only arises due to causes and conditions, as does buddhahood, buddhahood's cause (for example) is primarily the removal of the two obscurations and gathering of the two accumulations. There is no enlightenment to speak of without rectifying those afflictions, and one would be a fool to state otherwise.
Ahh so if people disagree with you then they are automatically fools.

krodha wrote:
Not necessarily, they could also be fools even if they agree with me... or they could not be. My only point is that if you think you are already a fully omniscient buddha and have no need for the buddhadharma, you are in fact a fool, no doubt.

Son of Buddha said:
and AGAIN Enlightenment does not arise due to causes and conditions, that goes against the basic definition of Bodhi itself.

krodha wrote:
What do you mean? You, yourself just stated that buddhahood arises due to causes and conditions above when you wrote this:

your enlightenment is like a mirror that is covered in dust all you have to do is remove the dust and the mirror that has been under it all along will be revealed.

So you are in agreement that the cause for buddhahood is awakening to recognize this mirror, and the conditions for buddhahood to manifest entail the removal of the metaphorical "dust" i.e., obscurations.

So there you have it, you have just stated yourself that buddhahood manifests in accordance with certain causes and conditions.

Son of Buddha said:
“There is, O monks, an Unborn, an Unbecome, an Unmade, an Unconditioned; if, O monks, there were not here this Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Unconditioned, there would not here be an escape from the born, the become, the made, the conditioned. But because there is an Unborn,…therefore there is an escape from the born….” (Udana 8,3)

krodha wrote:
Since you can't seem to leave this quote alone I'll simply paste what I wrote above: Udana 8.3 is describing the goal of the Śrāvakayāna, which is the sopādhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa or "nirvāṇa with remainder" of an arhat... it is the absorption cessation that bodhisattvas must awaken arhats from in order to allow them to continue on their paths towards buddhahood. Why you are continually citing this quote as a support for your baseless claim I'm not sure, but it has no relevance to the current discussion.

Son of Buddha said:
There are causes and conditions needed to remove the defilements off of the unborn, unmade, unconditioned

krodha wrote:
Excellent, now we are making progress, Son of Buddha.

Son of Buddha said:
Bodhi, But Enlightenment itself is unborn

krodha wrote:
Oops and now we're regressing into wrong view again. All you have to do is comprehend that "enlightenment" [bodhi] is the event of awakening to the aforementioned "unborn" and you've got it.

Son of Buddha said:
uncreated and unmade and does not need causes and conditions to CREATE IT.

krodha wrote:
Correct, your nature, as nondual clarity and emptiness is uncreated and unmade and does not need causes and conditions to create it... the catch is that your nature is not "enlightenment" [bodhi]. Bodhi is the act of awakening to recognize said uncreated and unmade nature.

Son of Buddha said:
like I said before, our inherent enlightenment only needs to be manifested from what obscures it.

krodha wrote:
Replace "enlightenment" with "nature" and yes, you've got it.

Son of Buddha said:
What you are mistakenly referring to as "inherent enlightenment" is a misinterpretation of the innate purity of phenomena, i.e., their unconditioned nature. That nature is not 'enlightenment'.
Although it is quiet, it has the ability to illumine the entire dharma-realm the three thousand great thousand world system. "Fundamental enlightenment" refers to the natural, primary essence inherent within us, which neither increases nor decreases, is neither produced nor destroyed, is neither defiled nor pure. Fundamental enlightenment is also called initial enlightenment.

Venerable Master Hsuan Hua

krodha wrote:
Bad choice of words Ven. Master Hsuan Hua. The intention of his statement is on point, but calling your nature "fundamental enlightenment" is not very helpful or accurate... your confusion on the matter being a prime example of why it isn't helpful or accurate.

Son of Buddha said:
As I have cited before Śrī Siṃha is very clear about this idea of 'primordial buddhahood' or 'inherent enlightenment' being a misunderstanding, and you should make sure you are VERY clear on this, otherwise you will compromise your chances of buddhahood altogether:

This is acceptable since a so called “primordial buddhahood” is not asserted. Full awakening is not possible without being free of the five afflictions... It is not possible for wisdom to increase without giving up afflictions. Wisdom will not arise without purifying afflictions.
I have 5 translations of the Queen Srimala Sutra which is literally my favorite sutra and I have NEVER seen this passage ever, do you care to send a link to the chapter and translation you are using (the sutra itself is only 36 pages long so you should have no problem whatsoever sourcing this)

krodha wrote:
Well thank the lord that Śrī Siṃha has nothing to do with the Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda sūtra.

Son of Buddha said:
So no, 'inherent enlightenment' is not taught in any buddhist teachings, and you are grievously mistaken if you believe it is. Really these discrepancies are due to your unrefined knowledge of these teachings, hopefully you will take heed and learn correctly.
there are entire Buddhist schools built around the idea of inherent enlightenment

krodha wrote:
No, there actually isn't. Not one of them state that there is no need for the teachings, or path and that everyone is a fully omniscient buddha... not one, and if they do, they are not buddhadharma, and should be avoided like the plague.

Son of Buddha said:
Tendai, the most popular chan teacher in the west  Venerable Master Hsuan Hua,(a simple google search into his commentaries can easily prove that),Shingon, Dolpopa's Jonang, and the idea itself rubbed off on most if not all Japanese Buddhism.

krodha wrote:
Right, well none of these schools, systems, or figures state that bodhi is inherent, so the issue is a misunderstanding on your part.

Son of Buddha said:
so quit being sectarian guy.

krodha wrote:
Sectarianism has nothing to do with this issue.

Son of Buddha said:
Also the idea that Buddha Nature is full fledged Buddhahood is the Basic Buddha Nature teachings 101
No, it actually isn't. The Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra states in no uncertain terms that buddha nature refers to a potential:

Child of the lineage, I have said that "curd exists in milk", because curd is produced from milk, it is called "curd".

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or manda, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the "curd-nature".
this quote doesn't say Buddha nature is different from Dharmakaya, this quote is just talking about the causes and conditions needed to manifest our inherent enlightenment

krodha wrote:
If your buddha-nature was full fledged buddhahood, and you were already a fully omniscient buddha (as you, by default, claim to be as a result of your view) then there would be no need for any causes and conditions.

But I'm glad you are finally admitting you need the cause of awakening [bodhi] and the condition of removing obscurations to actualize buddhahood. There is hope for you yet.

Son of Buddha said:
and the Nirvana Sutra says in no uncertain terms

Nirvana Sutra Moreover, emancipation is termed that which severs all conditioned phenomena [samskrta-dharmas], gives rise to all untainted [anasrava], wholseome qualities / phenomena and eliminates the various paths/ approaches, that is to say, Self, non-Self, not-Self and not non-Self. It merely severs attachment and does not sever the view of the Self/ the seeing of the Self/ the vision of the Self [atma-drsti]. The view of the Self is termed the ‘Buddha-dhatu’ [Buddha-Nature]. The Buddha-dhatu is true emancipation, and true emancipation is the Tathagata.

krodha wrote:
And you do realize this quote betrays your assertion that buddhahood and bodhi are inherent, yes?

Son of Buddha said:
and

True emancipation is the Tathagata. The Tathagata is Nirvana. Nirvana is the Infinite. The Infinite is the Buddha-Nature. Buddha-Nature is definiteness. Definiteness is unsurpassed Enlightenment.”

krodha wrote:
This is merely stating that your buddha-nature is a latent potential for buddhahood, it is demonstrating how one's buddanature, and the condition of a buddha are identical... yet the entire path separates the two, otherwise all sentient beings would be fully omniscient buddhas, and this is obviously not the case.

Son of Buddha said:
So this is yet another case of me telling you the book says the "stop sign is red", then you proceeding to tell me that the passages that says the "stop sign is red".....REALLY does'nt mean or say that the stop sign is red....it really means something opposite of what it is actually saying

krodha wrote:
Well, not really, but I'm glad you're so confident in your confusion that you have the audacity to formulate nice little metaphors of this kind. Unfortunate it has no application to the issue at hand, which is your own lack of education in regards to these teachings, and your meager understanding of these various principles.

Son of Buddha said:
I can post quotes all day that literally say the Dharmakaya is the Buddha Nature....and you would still deny what is literally written right in front of you.

krodha wrote:
Yes, like posting quotes all day that demonstrate that an acorn is the same as an oak tree in essence... yet even though they are identical in essence, they are not the same in nature, and that is the salient point.

Son of Buddha said:
Queen Srimala Sutra Chapter 8: The Dharmakaya V96. O’ Bhagavan, the extinction of suffering is not the destruction of the Dharma. Why so? Because the ‘extinction of suffering’ is known as the Dharmakaya of the World Honored One, which is beginningless, uncreated, unborn, undying, free from destruction, permanent unchanging, eternal, inherently pure, and separate from all the stores of defilement. The Dharmakaya is also not different from the inconceivable Buddha Natures which are more numerous than the sands of the river Ganges. The Dharmakaya of the World Honored One is called the Buddha Nature when it is obscured by the stores of defilement.”

krodha wrote:
Yes, and oak trees are also not different from the inconceivable acorns that are more numerous than the sands of the river Ganges. The oak tree is called the acorn when it has not germinated.

So fixating on the fact that dharmakāya and tathāgatagarbha are identical in essence is rather pointless, because they are nothing alike in nature. Just as sentient beings are buddhas are the same in essence, yet are nothing alike in nature.

Ordinary beings are truly buddhas, but this fact is obscured by adventitious distortions, once these are removed, truly there is buddhahood.
-- Hevajra Tantra


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
There is no school in Buddhism that states sentient beings are inherently awakened... sure, they may state that we possess an innately unconditioned nature... but that is something different than awakening or enlightenment [bodhi].

Qianxi said:
The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana 大乘起信論 states that all sentient beings are 'inherently awakened' 本覺. 覺 is the usual translation for bodhi, 本　means 'root' or 'originally'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongaku

You'd either have to argue that schools following Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (most of East Asian Buddhism) are not Buddhist schools, or argue that although the text talks about inherent awakening, they really mean 'innately unconditioned' (that's a plausible argument).   But the Awakening of Faith, and many other East Asian Buddhist texts do use a term that translates as 'inherent awakening'.

krodha wrote:
Being "inherently awakened" means you already have a direct, experiential knowledge of your nature and you don't need the teachings at all... I'm sure you can understand the issue with such a view.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 2:19 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
"inherent enlightenment" is not posited, otherwise there would be no reason for a path, or the teachings in general...

Wayfarer said:
Hate to jump in here, but this is not so. In many schools of Buddhism, it is said that the 'original nature of mind is inherently pure but is obscured by adventitious defilements'. It is not something you would find in the Pali (I don't think) but I'm sure that general idea is found in many Mahayana sources, both Sanskrit and East Asian.

krodha wrote:
Right, but this is not "inherent bodhi", that is the point I'm making. The fact that the nature of mind is originally pure and naturally perfected is not what is being challenged or addressed. What is being addressed is the event of awakening to that nature, that "awakening" or recognition of said nature is what we call "enlightenment" [bodhi].

So (i) bodhi and (ii) one's unconditioned nature, are two different things, our nature is always innately pure, but initially we do not have a direct, experiential, knowledge of that nature. We have to awaken to that nature, and that event of "awakening" is bodhi or "enlightenment". This means that enlightenment is not "inherent".

Wayfarer said:
Another thing that ought to be considered is the difference between the various buddhist schools, not from the perspective of an advocate of one or another of them, but a more general perspective. This would help to get an understanding of the way the term 'mind' is used in Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism.

krodha wrote:
There is no school in Buddhism that states sentient beings are inherently awakened... sure, they may state that we possess an innately unconditioned nature... but that is something different than awakening or enlightenment [bodhi]. "Enlightenment" is awakening to experientially know that unconditioned nature that was previously obscured by adventitious defilements.

If enlightenment was inherent, then we would all be fully omniscient buddhas who have conquered saṃsāra, we would be free of all defilement, free of suffering, and the buddhadharma would serve no purpose because none of us would need it. Obviously this is not the case.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 1:57 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
As I've pointed out to you before "Inherent enlightenment [bodhi]" also makes zero sense. If everyone was inherently enlightened then samsara wouldn't even be an issue and there would be no reason for the buddhadharma. So inherent enlightenment is an incorrect view. "Enlightenment" or "awakening" [bodhi] only arises due to causes and conditions, as does buddhahood, buddhahood's cause (for example) is primarily the removal of the two obscurations and gathering of the two accumulations. There is no enlightenment to speak of without rectifying those afflictions, and one would be a fool to state otherwise.

zengen said:
I'm not sure if you can refute inherent enlightenment altogether as it is the basis of Vajrayana from which beings can attain Buddhahood in one life, with one body, instead of in the Mahayana, beings have to practice for countless eons. This is what distinguishes the quick path from the slow one.

krodha wrote:
What makes Vajrayāna so rapid is the nature of its praxis, and yes its view plays a role in the expedient nature of its path... but even then, "inherent enlightenment" is not posited, otherwise there would be no reason for a path, or the teachings in general.

Again, what I think you're getting at is the fact that our unconditioned nature is originally pure and naturally perfected, no one is suggesting that it isn't. However, the issue is that this unconditioned nature is obscured by adventitious defilements, so the nature of the path is akin to an excavation. Nothing is being created anew, or constructed, we are only removing the veil of defilement so that our unconditioned nature is known, free of any obscurations.

This process does not suggest an "inherent enlightenment". "Enlightenment" [bodhi] is awakening to our unconditioned nature that was previously obscured by delusion. The term "inherent" also does not makes sense because if something is inherently so, it is always the case no matter what. Bodhi is not always the case no matter what, we must actualize bodhi, meaning we must awaken to our nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Ok so Koji = Ardent = songhill... which explains a lot.

Koji said:
When your own defense of natthattā (Pali, for there is no ātman ) runs out of gas there is nothing like a good old ad hominem attack.

krodha wrote:
Oh, well "there is no ātman" is not my view, so I wouldn't have to run out of gas defending it in order to note that you are songhill.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Thrangu R. is a lharampa geshe and Shentongpa. I'm going to say that he understands Madhyamaka far better than you or I will ever even imagine doing. So I don't think that's the issue.

asunthatneversets said:
Thrangu Rinpoche's "gzhan stong" is very subtle, and usually is in harmony with Prasanga etc., when I read his expositions I never encounter anything controversial or out of the ordinary. Which is to say you'd never know he was a gzhan stong pa unless it was pointed out to you. So he is not a good example.

smcj said:
No, that is why he is an excellent example. There are many shades of grey when it comes to Shentong.

I haven't managed to get into his commentary on the Uttartantra yet, but Jomgon Kongtrul "The Great" was by reputation almost as much a Shentongpa as Dolpopa. More to be seen as I read more.

krodha wrote:
In any case, my point is that if you understand Madhyamaka properly then there really is no need for gzhan stong, because of doesn't offer anything different than so-called "rang stong".

Now, Dolbupa is a different story, his gzhan stong is incredibly extreme IMO, so those who are adherents to Dolbupa's view are clearly looking for a view that deviates from normative Buddhist views. That is a different story.

From what I've seen, Kongtrul's gzhan stong owes more to those like Shakya Chogden than Dolbupa. Dolbupa is really in a league of his own.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
The problem is that people don't understand Madhyamaka.
Thrangu R. is a lharampa geshe and Shentongpa. I'm going to say that he understands Madhyamaka far better than you or I will ever even imagine doing. So I don't think that's the issue.

krodha wrote:
Thrangu Rinpoche's "gzhan stong" is very subtle, and usually is in harmony with Prasanga etc., when I read his expositions I never encounter anything controversial or out of the ordinary. Which is to say you'd never know he was a gzhan stong pa unless it was pointed out to you. So he is not a good example.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Ergo emptiness, like space, except pregnant with infinite potential, is your inexhaustible cause (conventionally of course).
So you've become a Shentongpa. Welome to the club.

krodha wrote:
No, and this is why the whole gzhan stong thing is extraneous and rather pointless... the original Indian Madhyamaka never denied things like potential, or Buddha-qualities etc.

The problem is that people don't understand Madhyamaka.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Phenomena have inexhaustible dynamism and potentiality because they are ultimately empty... if they were truly existent, they would have no potentiality, they would instead be fixed, lifeless, dead, and overall inconceivable impossibilities.
And, in this text, the Dharmadhatu is the "inexhaustive cause". Not interdependent causation, inexhaustive cause--a cause without a cause.

krodha wrote:
Afflictive dependent origination only occurs when emptiness is not recognized, because in truth what originates dependently does not originate at all, so there is no production occurring in what you are referring to as "interdependent causation". Ergo emptiness, like space, except pregnant with infinite potential, is your inexhaustible cause (conventionally of course).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Ok so Koji = Ardent = songhill... which explains a lot.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
You can't spin that into Prasangika.

krodha wrote:
Why not? After all, Nāgārjuna did say:

Where emptiness is possible, everything is possible,
Where emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.

Phenomena have inexhaustible dynamism and potentiality because they are ultimately empty... if they were truly existent, they would have no potentiality, they would instead be fixed, lifeless, dead, incapable of expression, reactivity, evolution, growth, and moreover they would be nothing short of inconceivable impossibilities.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
"...That's why it is the in exhaustive cause."

asunthatneversets said:
Correct, this is describing emptiness... not some universal pleroma-like source.

smcj said:
You're joking, right?

krodha wrote:
I'm as serious as a heart attack. Are you joking?

This text is perfectly in line with the standard Indian view of phenomena and the emptiness of said phenomena, why you think it deviates in the least I have no idea.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Well, that certainly isn't true for the Dharmadhatustava, which is also describing the emptiness of phenomena and nothing more.
"...That's why it is the in exhaustive cause."

krodha wrote:
Correct, this is describing emptiness... not some universal pleroma-like source.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Dharmadhātu is simply the emptiness of phenomena:
Like I've been saying, a term often is re-defined by a given tradition, author, context, etc. That's just how Tibetans do it. So simply giving a counter-quotation does not invalidate the intention/definition of the original quotation given by a given author in a given context. Even though the two quotation may be using the same work you are comparing apples and oranges.

krodha wrote:
Well, that certainly isn't true for the Dharmadhatustava, which is also describing the emptiness of phenomena and nothing more.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Dharmadhatustava tr. Brunnholzl

8
Unarisen is the dharmahatu,
And never cease it will.
At all times without afflictions,
Stainless through beginning, middle, end.

Brunnholzl interprets (p.115) the following as saying, "…the dharmdhatu is the fundamental basis for everything in samsara and nirvana."

57
The great and might ones' supreme abode,
Akanistha that's so beautiful,
And consciousness, all three of them,
Fuse into a single one, I say.

58
As for knowing all among the childish,
The diversity amoun the noble,
And the great and might, infinite in time--
What's the cause of time in eons?

59
For sustaining the duration,
During eons truly infinite,
Of [all] beings outer realms
And for creatures' life-force to remain,
This is what's the inexhaustive cause.

***********************************************
That's why, when Malcolm quoted Brunnholzl on another thread, Brunnholzl excluded this text from the classical Indian Madhyamaka view.

krodha wrote:
Dharmadhātu is simply the emptiness of phenomena:

If it is asked what is the bodhisattva's skill in the elements [khams, dhātu], it is that which is the wisdom that engages the dharmadhātu. The dharmadhātu is the element of earth, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of solidity. The dharmadhātu is the element of water, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of wetness. The dharmadhātu is the element of fire, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of maturation. The dharmadhātu is the element of air, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of motility. The dharmadhātu is the element of the eye, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of sight...The dharmadhātu is the element of the body, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of touch. The dharmadhātu is the element of mind, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of perception [vijñāpti]. The dharmadhātu is the element of eye consciousness, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of of the specific perception of form...The dharmadhātu is the element of form, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of the element of perception of an eye consciousness. The dharmadhātu is the element of phenomena [chos kyi khams, dharma dhātu, one of the eighteen dhātus], but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of the perception of phenomena...the dharmadhātu and the element of the self are the same. The dharmadhātu, the desire realm, form realm and formless realm are the same. The dharmadhātu and the element of samsara and the element of nirvana are the same. The dharmadhātu, the element of sentient beings the element of space and the element of all phenomena, those are the same. If it is asked why they are the same, because they are the same as emptiness, they are the same.
-- Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra [per Malcolm]


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
I haven't seen this in the Chan teachings.

Sheng Yen wrote in Orthodox Chinese Buddhism:
Do Buddhists Believe in the Existence of a Soul?

No, Buddhists do not believe in the existence of an eternal, unchanging soul. Someone who believes in the existence of an eternal, unchanging soul is not truly a Buddhist, but rather an outer-path adherent maintaining the existence of a self ( sehnwo waidao ).

krodha wrote:
Thanks, perhaps I've only been exposed to the Chinese Buddhism that ends up promoting a self, but that is good to know that such views are not as widespread as some like to claim they are.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Plus it's not just the Chinese. Tibetans have Shentong, which in varying forms and to varying degrees is currently found in 3 of the 4 major schools. And that's not counting the Jonanagpas.

krodha wrote:
Right, but gzhan stong is a form of Madhyamaka that is essentially only aiming to convey that one's nature is not deprived of buddha-qualities... some species of gzhan stong are a bit more extreme, such as Dolbupa's interpretation, and in that respect one could probably indeed argue that Dolbupa was making a case for a "self" of some stripe, but even then, he does clarify that he is not advocating for a "self" like that of the tīrthikas:

Since the matrix-of-the-one gone-thus is empty of the two selves, it is not similar to the self [ātman] of the forders [tīrthikas], and because uncompounded noumena transcends the momentary, it is permanent, stable, and everlasting. It is not that it, like space, is without any of the qualities, powers, and aspects of a buddha, and it is not like the self of persons that the forders impute to be permanent.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
What?

asunthatneversets said:
Chinese Buddhism is also highly influenced by Taoism and managed to acquire a "self" or "soul" in its view as a result of that influence, so much if it is flawed. But this is why eternalists eat it up. And this is also why you may indeed see Chinese sources appearing to advocate for a dharmatā that is separate from dharmas... however this does not mean such a view is correct.

krodha wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Acquired-Buddhist-Studies-Monographs/dp/1845539974


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Also the idea that tathāgatagarbha is full-fledged buddhahood is contradicted by this passage:
The seed existing in oneself that turns into buddhahood is called "tathāgatgarbha," the buddhahood which one will obtain.
Again one sentence with no context.

This is only in reference to inherent enlightenment manifesting in the life of the sentient being, it is in no way saying that the Buddha nature is a part that you can use to create the unconditioned unborn Enlightenment.

krodha wrote:
As I've pointed out to you before "Inherent enlightenment [bodhi]" also makes zero sense. If everyone was inherently enlightened then samsara wouldn't even be an issue and there would be no reason for the buddhadharma. So inherent enlightenment is an incorrect view. "Enlightenment" or "awakening" [bodhi] only arises due to causes and conditions, as does buddhahood, buddhahood's cause (for example) is primarily the removal of the two obscurations and gathering of the two accumulations. There is no enlightenment to speak of without rectifying those afflictions, and one would be a fool to state otherwise.

What you are mistakenly referring to as "inherent enlightenment" is a misinterpretation of the innate purity of phenomena, i.e., their unconditioned nature. That nature is not 'enlightenment'. Enlightenment [bodhi] is an event that occurs in the continuum of a sentient being, because that aspirant has actualized a perfect and unobstructed knowledge of the unconditioned nature of phenomena. So you are confused on this matter and have been for some time. When you say "inherent" you actually mean to say "innate", and when you say "enlightenment" you actually mean to say "unconditioned nature"... this issue with the term "bodhi" is really a reoccurring theme for you.

As I have cited before Śrī Siṃha is very clear about this idea of 'primordial buddhahood' or 'inherent enlightenment' being a misunderstanding, and you should make sure you are VERY clear on this, otherwise you will compromise your chances of buddhahood altogether:

This is acceptable since a so called “primordial buddhahood” is not asserted. Full awakening is not possible without being free of the five afflictions... It is not possible for wisdom to increase without giving up afflictions. Wisdom will not arise without purifying afflictions.

You are confusing bodhi, with the unconditioned nature of phenomena. Phenomena are indeed innately pure and unconditioned, however due to afflictive obscurations you do not have a direct or experiential knowledge of this. You must first recognize that unconditioned nature, and then remove the afflictive traces that sustain the two obscurations in your continuum. Upon exhausting the two obscurations you will actualize buddhahood i.e., "enlightenment", but not prior to that. The unconditioned nature of phenomena remains unconditioned at all times, but you do not have knowledge of that nature, much less a complete knowledge divested of obscurations.

So no, 'inherent enlightenment' is not taught in any buddhist teachings, and you are grievously mistaken if you believe it is. Really these discrepancies are due to your unrefined knowledge of these teachings, hopefully you will take heed and learn correctly.

Son of Buddha said:
Also the idea that Buddha Nature is full fledged Buddhahood is the Basic Buddha Nature teachings 101

krodha wrote:
No, it actually isn't. The Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra states in no uncertain terms that buddha nature refers to a potential:

Child of the lineage, I have said that "curd exists in milk", because curd is produced from milk, it is called "curd".

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or manda, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the "curd-nature".

Son of Buddha said:
Simply said the term Buddha Nature is just a word used to describe the Dharmakaya(full buddhahood) when it us still obscured by adventurous defilements.....that's it.

krodha wrote:
Dharmakāya is the result as complete, omniscient, buddhahood. Since the nature of sentient beings is ultimately unconditioned, they have the potential to recognize this nature and remove the adventitious obscurations that have obscured that unconditioned nature... at that time of being completely free of ignorance and obscuration, the result, as dharmakāya is made manifest. Buddhahood is a term that is used to denote that event. The only thing that sentient beings have is a latent potential for that omniscience, just like milk has a latent potential to manifest curd if certain conditions are met.

Son of Buddha said:
Queen Srimala Sutra Chapter 8: The Dharmakaya V96.   O’ Bhagavan, the extinction of suffering is not the destruction of the Dharma. Why so? Because the ‘extinction of suffering’ is known as the Dharmakaya of the World Honored One, which is beginningless, uncreated, unborn, undying, free from destruction, permanent unchanging, eternal, inherently pure, and separate from all the stores of defilement. The Dharmakaya is also not different from the inconceivable Buddha Natures which are more numerous than the sands of the river Ganges. The Dharmakaya of the World Honored One is called the Buddha Nature when it is obscured by the stores of defilement.”

krodha wrote:
This is referring to the full omniscience of a buddha at the time of the result, and is stating that said omniscience can be found to be latent within all sentient beings, and that is all it is saying.

Son of Buddha said:
Nirvana Sutra Moreover, emancipation is termed that which severs all conditioned phenomena [samskrta-dharmas], gives rise to all untainted [anasrava], wholseome qualities / phenomena and eliminates the various paths/ approaches, that is to say, Self, non-Self, not-Self and not non-Self. It merely severs attachment and does not sever the view of the Self/ the seeing of the Self/ the vision of the Self [atma-drsti]. The view of the Self is termed the ‘Buddha-dhatu’ [Buddha-Nature]. The Buddha-dhatu is true emancipation, and true emancipation is the Tathagata.

krodha wrote:
This is again, simply describing buddhahood as a complete cessation of cause for the arising of suffering, and is using the term "self" as a literary device to denote buddha nature, it is not controversial at all. Your misinterpretation is the only controversial aspect of this.

Son of Buddha said:
Also, emancipation cuts off all greed, all external appearances, all bonds, all illusions, all births and deaths, all causes and conditions, all karma results. Such emancipation is the Tathagata. The Tathagata is Nirvana. When all beings [come to] fear birth and death and illusion, they take refuge in the Three Treasures. This is like a herd of deer who fear the hunter and run away. One jump may be likened to one refuge, and three such jumps to three refuges. From the three jumps, peace comes. It is the same with all beings. When one fears the four Maras and the evil-minded hunter, one takes the three Refuges [in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha]. As a result of the three Refuges, one gains peace. Gaining peace is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata. The Tathagata is Nirvana. Nirvana is the Infinite. The Infinite is the Buddha-Nature. Buddha-Nature is definiteness. Definiteness is unsurpassed Enlightenment.”

krodha wrote:
This is just straight up Mahāyāna, and does not say anything to support your colorful interpretations.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
That's an important point.  Classical Chinese translations are often highly terse and due to their poetic and evocative quality amenable to widely divergent translations and interpretations.  Consequently, Chinese Madhyamaka seems much less logically elaborate in its categorizations and the terms of debate than what I see in contemporary Tibetan traditions, but at the same time more provocative, if that makes sense.

krodha wrote:
Chinese Buddhism is also highly influenced by Taoism and managed to acquire a "self" or "soul" in its view as a result of that influence, so much if it is flawed. But this is why eternalists eat it up. And this is also why you may indeed see Chinese sources appearing to advocate for a dharmatā that is separate from dharmas... however this does not mean such a view is correct.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
There is no system of the buddhadharma that posits a dharmatā that abides separately from dharmas.

smcj said:
Well, if you define anything that does posit such thing as "heresy" it is a truism. If not, you're on thin ice.

krodha wrote:
Rather than "heresey" it is simply an inaccurate view that is not conducive to actualizing buddhahood.

Overall it is simple logic, how could there be an essence or nature of something that resides separately from said something? Once you state that a dharmatā is found apart from a given dharmin, you automatically render said dharmatā as another conditioned dharma. Such a view removes the possibility of an unconditioned dharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
You are positing a dharmatā that abides apart from dharmins, this means your view deviates from the buddhadharma.
I think that could be better phrased "…deviates from a classical Indian style of buddhadharma." (if you ignore "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" that is).

krodha wrote:
There is no system of the buddhadharma that posits a dharmatā that abides separately from dharmas.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
zengen said:
I think people keep confusing between the "self" that is an illusion of the five skandhas and the "True Self" that is beyond the five

asunthatneversets said:
There's no such thing.

Son of Buddha said:
Yes there is such a thing. Everything he said is actually supported in the Sutras
Nirvana Sutra All such meanings of the letters well enable beings to purify their verbal actions. The Buddha-Nature of beings does not first become pure when assisted by letters. Why not? Because that nature is originally pure. Also, while co-existing with the five skandhas, the 18 realms and the 12 spheres [of the senses], the Buddha-Nature is not one with the five skandhas, the 18 realms and the 12 spheres. Because of this, all beings should take refuge in the Bodhisattvas and others.

krodha wrote:
Yet this passage does not support the assertion that there is a self outside the skandhas. It merely states that tathāgatagarbha is not one of the skandhas... this does not mean it abides outside of them.

You are positing a dharmatā that abides apart from dharmins, this means your view deviates from the buddhadharma.

zengen said:
and is taught in Buddhism as the Buddha Nature that is inherent in all living beings.
ASTNS
Tathāgatagarbha is not a self, it is one's latent nature that is a mere potential for omniscience. The term "self" only appears in the tathāgatagarbha sūtras as a subversion to Hindu sanatanadharma. It is a mere rhetorical device that is wholly conventional.

Son of Buddha said:
Your unsupported opinion as usual.

The Buddha Nature is the True Self

krodha wrote:
Ironically, this is your unsupported opinion, since the term "true self" never appears in the sūtras you cite in order to support your baseless claim.

Son of Buddha said:
Nirvana Sutra Kasyapa said to the Buddha: “O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?” The Buddha said: “O good man! “Self” means “Tathagatagarbha” [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it.

krodha wrote:
And it has been pointed out repeatedly that "self" (no need to capitalize) in this context is a mere literary device. There is no such thing as a self, beyond the scope of the conventional, of course.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 11:25 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
zengen said:
I think people keep confusing between the "self" that is an illusion of the five skandhas and the "True Self" that is beyond the five

krodha wrote:
There's no such thing.

zengen said:
and is taught in Buddhism as the Buddha Nature that is inherent in all living beings.

krodha wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha is not a self, it is one's latent nature that is a mere potential for omniscience. The term "self" only appears in the tathāgatagarbha sūtras as a subversion to Hindu sanatanadharma. It is a mere rhetorical device that is wholly conventional.

zengen said:
When you argue whether or not the SELF exists, which "self" are you referring to?

krodha wrote:
Both. Neither one has any validity or reality to it.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I don't follow... where is this phrase "transcendent sublime identity" used?

dzogchungpa said:
Oh, nevermind.

krodha wrote:
You're clearly referring to this:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17872&start=80#p257790

In any case, Malcolm already clarified that "atma" in that context denotes "nature", and not an identity, self, etc.

You've also mentioned it here:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=14626&start=280#p197538

And stated that bdag dam pa'i pha rol tu phyin pa is synonymous with bdag nyid chen po spoken of in Dzogpachenpo, however this does not suggest a "self" of any kind.

Depending upon which system of Dzogpachenpo you are using there can be between seven and nine positions one can take in relation to the basis [gzhi]. Vairocana's view of choice was bdag nyid chen po, however that is only one facet of the basis, and therefore grasping at that definition as an all encompassing view which speaks for the basis would be akin to the blind man grasping the elephants tail and proclaiming that the elephant is actually a rope. It is an incomplete view. Further, the only definitive view of the basis is held to be ka dag i.e. original purity, which is emptiness free from extremes. Ka dag as such therefore completely forbids any type of 'self'.

So Dzogchen does not hold bdag nyid chen po to be a 'self' in the sense you seem to be implying it is. This is known by anyone who understands the view of Atiyoga. You will not find any sect or cycle of Dzogchen which states there is a truly established 'self' in the sense you are insinuating.

As stated by Dylan Esler on this issue, 'integral being' [bdag nyid chen po] is nothing more than the inseparable emptiness and clarity [stong gsal dbyer med] which is experienced upon recognizing the nature of mind [sems nyid] and does not refer to an eternal self of any kind. He states:
"The fact that it is explicitly described as being both empty and luminous excludes reification into a monolithic self."
The point of bdag nyid chen po is to illustrate that the nature of one's mind is not to be found elsewhere, that it is one's immediate condition, however it is the the wisdom which ensues from recognizing the non-arising of one's mind [skt. citta, tib. sems]. This term is therefore pointing to that nature, and only that nature which is completely empty and free from extremes.

Esler continues:
"...the tantric and rDzogs-chen notion of integral being [skt. mahātman] should not be misconstrued to contradict the orthodox Buddhist insistence on selflessness [skt. anātman], simply because of the use of related words with different shades of meaning. As mentioned above, the terminology used is sufficiently precise to ward off misunderstanding, and that is to say nothing of the contextual meaning, which leaves no trace of doubt."
and:
"It is precisely when egocentric apprehension, the mistaken moment-by-moment reification of a self [skt. ātman], falls aside that one can speak of integral being [skt. mahātman], without this notion contradicting more normative Buddhist ideas of selflessness [skt. anātman]."


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
The very description of the True Self in the Nirvana Sutra...

asunthatneversets said:
This would first require the presence of a "true self" in the Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra to begin with, however there is no such term in the original Sanskrit, so a "true self" of whatever stripe is merely the whimsical fabrication of some translators.

dzogchungpa said:
How about "transcendent sublime identity"? Talk about a whimsical fabrication.

krodha wrote:
I don't follow... where is this phrase "transcendent sublime identity" used?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
The very description of the True Self in the Nirvana Sutra...

krodha wrote:
This would first require the presence of a "true self" in the Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra to begin with, however there is no such term in the original Sanskrit, so a "true self" of whatever stripe is merely the whimsical fabrication of some translators.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 11th, 2015 at 11:45 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Since he is a Jonangpa, if his posts are in keeping with Dolpopa, he is simply sharing Jonang orthodoxy, much like Tsongkhapafan does with Gelug orthodoxy. And Dolpopa is definitely well qualified in his referencing of the the tantras. After all, all of Jonang view is based on the experiences of a group of Kalachackra practitioners.

Of course that doesn't mean everyone else, or even other Shentongpas, have to accept those interpretations of the sutras and tantras in that way. It is Jonang specific, but obviously with extensive influences outside the Jonang.

krodha wrote:
Sure, but then why quote the rdo rje sems dpa' snying gi me long gi rgyud? It is not a Jonang tantra, much less a text that coincides with Son of Buddha's view.

In case you haven't noticed, SoB is a bit of an opportunist when it comes to these scriptures, he'll quote any literature that even remotely resembles his view so that he can twist to promulgate his "buddhanature is a self" campaign. I've seen him go as far as to attempt and wield random excerpts from other Dzogchen tantras as a weapons in furthering his agenda, which means he doesn't understand the literature... since no Dzogchen text agrees with his view, and in fact refute it outright. So sure, if he wants to quote Dolbupa all day long that's fine, but quoting a Dzogchen tantra is quite a stretch, especially when taken out of context like the one above.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 11th, 2015 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Except in both the Sutras and Tantras it is taught that the Buddha Nature is physically present within you, and can even be seen with the eyes. So the Buddha Nature is not just some word that denotes the possibility or potential to attain Enlightenment.

krodha wrote:
Only in the tantras are practices described that entail seeing sugatagarbha, there's nothing like that in the sūtras apart from Buddhas being able to see dharmakāya at the time of the result, but that is a completely different principle.

Even then, buddha nature is a latent potentiality in both cases, the fact that it is embodied does not change the fact that it is latently present... otherwise everyday sentient beings would cognize their nature effortlessly and at all times.

Son of Buddha said:
the Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva Tantra states:

The sugatagarbha exists intrinsically in all sentient beings. That exists just as sesame seeds are permeated with oil. Its basis — it is based on the material aggregate. It’s location — it is located in the center of the heart. Also that is called “the transcendent state of Samantabhadra’s sealed locket”. For example, like a sealed locket of leather, inside its location, from the center of a five colored light there exist peaceful kāyas the size of mustard grains in halos of light. That is the location of vidyā. For example, it is like form of a vase.

krodha wrote:
And now you're re-quoting an excerpt that was evoked to make a point to you, that comes from a system you don't practice, don't have transmission for, and don't understand.

This is the point that others were trying to make you understand about the two types of Buddha nature; just because you think you understand sūtric tathāgatagarbha, does not mean you understand tantric sugatagarbha.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 9:10 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Your last 3 posts to me was of you complaining and you giving me your opinions......

krodha wrote:
As were yours.

Son of Buddha said:
And you did not provide any sources that were even relevant to our conversation whatsoever.

krodha wrote:
I did. But if I didn't, you didn't either, since when it comes down to it my "lack of sources" is simply you disagreeing with my points because they are in conflict with your view, so in that respect our positions on the matter are identical.

Son of Buddha said:
Matter of fact out of ALL those long posts you only provided 1 source and your source had zero to do with the actual topic of how Not Self is actually applied in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras.

krodha wrote:
Understand, that this is your conclusion due to the cognitive dissonance you are exhibiting in relation to the Lanka passages that overtly contradict your tired assertions.

Son of Buddha said:
Here is your source
ASTBS that the tathāgatagarbha IS, is this:

The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone".
-- Bhāviveka
And my reply to you is the Tathagatagarbha is this:

Nirvana sutra] CHAPTER TWELVE: ON THE TATHAGATA-DHATU
V417.   “Kasyapa said to the Buddha: “O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?” The Buddha said: “O good man! “Self” means “Tathagatagarbha” [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it.
_ Buddha

krodha wrote:
Correct, I cited the Bhavya passage to demonstrate what tathāgatagarbha in fact denotes.

And in your response you've cited an example of a rhetorical device that you absurdly mistake as a literal proclamation for the existence of a self.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
@ASTNS I have highly sourced everything in my post and you have entirely ignored those sources thus your only "defense" against my argument you have provided is.......... Your wrong because I say you are wrong.. Yep great "refutation".

krodha wrote:
Right, well, like I said your argument is flawed to begin with because you are an eternalist who chooses to make a literal interpretation of clearly subversive rhetorical devices.

Son of Buddha said:
Your two massive posts have nothing useful in them

krodha wrote:
Sounds familiar.

Son of Buddha said:
its just you providing your unsourced opinion

krodha wrote:
Since I provided adequate "sources" this same criticism applies to yourself. The issue isn't with said sources, but our disagreement regarding what constitutes a valid interpretation of said sources.

Son of Buddha said:
and a whole bunch of complaining and making up random things you cannot prove.

krodha wrote:
Again, sounds familiar.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
The Nirvana Sutra translation I use was Translated into English by Kosho Yamamoto in 1973 so you are incorrect

krodha wrote:
Nevertheless, it is a disingenuous translation, and is most likely severely out-dated.

Son of Buddha said:
also please stop making up lies

krodha wrote:
Projection.

Son of Buddha said:
your lying will not discredit the facts that have been presented.

krodha wrote:
Your so-called "facts" discredit themselves by virtue of the inescapable biases they are steeped in.

Son of Buddha said:
Also quit talking bad about Dr Tony Page, he us currently in the emergency room right now.

krodha wrote:
Pointing out that he has eternalist biases is not "talking bad" of him. It is simply accurate.

But may he recover quickly from whatever ails him.

Son of Buddha said:
in short you cannot refute my argument so you resort to making up lies about the sources themselves (cause if the sources are real then your whole argument goes.

krodha wrote:
Red-herring.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
zengen said:
Yes, but this True Self is not the Self taught in Hinduism, a point I was trying to make. I did not deny the True Self taught in Buddhism.

krodha wrote:
In truth, this alleged "true self" is a colorful translation choice. The original Sanskrit does not actually say "true self".


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Dude again in the CONTEXT of the Tathagatagarbha Sutras the Buddha in order to eliminate ordinary peoples false views of Self

krodha wrote:
First of all, a "self" of any kind in the tathāgatagarbha sūtras is a mere literary device that is an example of an upāya presented in the form of a subversion of Hindu principles. It is not to be taken literally, which I know is difficult for you. The fact that you blatantly ignore these crucial examples of "context" while pompously attempting to council others on how to relate to these texts with context is laughable.

But to address your assertion; no, the tathāgatagarbha is not a concept that is implemented to remove false ideas of some sort of "self" that is a ridiculous notion.

Son of Buddha said:
teaches the Buddha Nature(which is True Self) to be Not Self.

krodha wrote:
I'm sorry, but there is no "true self" in Buddhism, no matter what individuals such as Tony Page choose to say in their translations. You are simply promoting some sort of pop-Hindu non-sense that has zero credibility or foundation in the original texts.

Son of Buddha said:
And THAT is the point of the Lankavatara passage

krodha wrote:
Sadly, it is about as far from the intention of the Lanka as you can get.

Son of Buddha said:
the Buddha in the Lankavatara Sutra taught Buddha Nature as Annatman in order to remove people false concepts that they had been imputing unto the True Self(Buddha Nature)

krodha wrote:
No, this is your own deluded fantasy.

Son of Buddha said:
So this passage in the Lankavatara Sutra is a provisional teaching.

krodha wrote:
What is "provisional" or "definitive" varies from text to text and system to system. There is no such thing as an objectively definitive position, but of course you think there is actually a substantiated self that these texts are describing so it is no surprise you think your misconceptions are backed by some air of "objective definitiveness".

Son of Buddha said:
As your quote from the Lankavatara states:
O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self [anātman].

krodha wrote:
Correct. Otherwise people run the risk of deluding themselves into believing there is some sort of uber-self that is their true identity, like you do.

Son of Buddha said:
As you can see your own quote is in agreement with me,

krodha wrote:
Not in the least.

Son of Buddha said:
also the does not say the Buddha nature IS not Self

krodha wrote:
Are you meaning to imply that there is actually a tathāgatagarbha that IS something else?

What the tathāgatagarbha IS, is this:

The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone".
-- Bhāviveka

Son of Buddha said:
it clearly states the Buddha Nature is TREATED as not self in order to remove their incorrect view in regard to the True Self/ Buddha Nature further proving my next point.

krodha wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha is a provisional convention that is implemented as an upāya... it is not some truly existent "thing" that is somehow capable of being "treated" as other than it somehow "IS"... apart from your complete deviation from right conventional view of course.

Son of Buddha said:
Nirvana Sutra V464. While a Bodhisattva discourses thus about the quality of the Self,  ordinary people do not but impute various false concepts to the Self just as when asked about the attributes of the sword the [ministers] reply that it is like the horn of a ram.

these ordinary people generate false views in succession from one on to the other. In order to eliminate such false views, the Tathagata reveals and discourses on the non-existence of a self just as when the prince tells his various ministers that there is no such sword in his treasury. Noble Son, the True Self that the Tathagata expounds today is called the Buddha-dhatu [Buddha-Nature]. this manner of Buddha-dhatu is shown in the Buddha-Dharma with the example of the real sword.l Noble Son, should there be any ordinary person who is able well to expound this, then he [speaks] in accordance with unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma. Should there be anyone who is well able to distinguish this in accordance with what has been expounded regarding it, then you should know that he has the nature of a Bodhisattva.

krodha wrote:
And of course you are forced to again turn to your eternalist translations (Tony Page or not) to support your baseless arguments. It's quite evident that you do not understand what you're reading at all, after-all how could you?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Right back at you

I have highly sourced everything in my post and you have entirely ignored those sources

krodha wrote:
And as pointed out said "sources" are highly questionable, much like your quotations from Tony Page's Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra translation that you often rely on... Page is a career eternalist and his biases burden his scholarship. The same goes for your quoting of Chinese translations, where as Malcolm pointed out, the idea of a "soul" or "self" has inserted itself like weeds growing in an untended garden. Your "sources" are biased and this discredits your entire argument.

In short, you hide behind faulty scholarship in order to promulgate your own dogmatic biases.

Son of Buddha said:
thus your only "defense" against my argument you have provided is.......... Your wrong because I say you are wrong.. Yep great "refutation".

krodha wrote:
Your view has been refuted at length, the fact that (i) your aforementioned confirmation biases are so thick that you are immune to reason, and (ii) have some sort of inner-existential crisis that you are attempting to quell through inferential belief like all eternalist dogmatists, are both issues that are not examples of steep poverties on my part, quite the opposite in fact.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
zengen Here is what will end this debate, as according to what Buddha himself said in the Lankavatara Sutra
This is false the Lankavatara Sutra teaches that viewing the Tathagatagarbha as empty of self is a provisional teaching that is taught to new Buddhists who already have a mistaken idea of self. So the entire idea that Buddha Nature is Not Self is actually the upaya teaching.
Lankavatara Sutra Mahamati, the Tathagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathagatagarbha with the demonstration of Anatman(not self)(Chinese version)

krodha wrote:
Which is a highly questionable translation when compared to this (which contradicts your entire assertion):

O Mahāmati, the tathāgatas thus teach the garbha in so far as they teach the tathāgatagarbha in order to attract those who are attached to the heterodox ātmavāda. How can people whose minds fall into the conceptual theory bearing on an unreal self (abhūtātmavikalpa) attain quickly the complete awakening in the supreme and exact sambodhi, possessing a mind comprised in the domain of the three gateways of emancipation? O Mahāmati, it is because of this that the tathāgatas teach the tathāgatagarbha.
-- Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra

Not to mention this, from the same text:

O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self [anātman].

Son of Buddha said:
In the end it is very very important to (1) actually have more than 1 passage to support your position

krodha wrote:
Which, coming from you turns into a barrage of shotgun argumentation wrought with quotations from bogus translations that are taken out of context.

Son of Buddha said:
And (2) actually know the CONTEXT of your 1 passage in the whole overall Tathagatagarbha Doctrine.

krodha wrote:
Which you do not. You treat tathāgatagarbha like the heterodox ātmavāda that is criticized in the very texts you cite in your attempts to substantiate your baseless theories, and so your "evidence" for your arguments betrays you every time.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
zengen Here is what will end this debate, as according to what Buddha himself said in the Lankavatara Sutra
This is false the Lankavatara Sutra teaches that viewing the Tathagatagarbha as empty of self is a provisional teaching that is taught to new Buddhists who already have a mistaken idea of self. So the entire idea that Buddha Nature is Not Self is actually the upaya teaching.
Lankavatara Sutra Mahamati, the Tathagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathagatagarbha with the demonstration of Anatman(not self)(Chinese version)
This is further proven by the fact that the Lankavatara Sutra clearly states that the 100% Correct teachings of Tathagatagarbha is located in the Queen Srimala Sutra

Lankavatara Sutra And for Queen Śrīmālā to whom the Buddha's spiritual power was added, the [pure] realm of Tathagatahood was expounded. This does not belong to the realm of speculation as it is carried on by the Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and other philosophers, except, Mahāmati, that this realm of Tathagatahood which is the realm of the Tathāgata-garbha-ālayavijñāna is meant for those Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas who like you are

Okay so we have established from the Lankavatara that the correct teachings of the Buddha Nature was taught to Queen Srimala....... Okay sir SO what are the correct teachings from Quern srimala on this subject?

Queen Srimala Sutra Know that those living beings who have devout faith in the Buddha and view the Buddha as having Permanence, Bliss, Self and Purity do not stray away from the correct path. In truth it is those living beings who have the Right View Why is this? Because the Dharmakaya of the World Honored One is the perfection of permanence, the perfection of bliss, the perfection of the Noumenon Self, and the perfection of purity. Those living beings who see the Dharmakaya of the Buddha in this way are the ones who have seen correctly. Those who see correctly are called the Sons and Daughters of the Lord, born from his heart, born from his mouth, born from the Dharma, those who act as if they are a manifestation of the Dharma, heirs to the Dharma.

So as the Lankavatara states the queen srimala has the right view and the Queen srimala says the right view is The Buddga Nature is True Self. The Lankavatara further states in no uncertain terms.
Those who propound the doctrine of non-Self are to be shunned in the religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of Being and non-Being [existence and non-existence].” ~ Lankavatara SutraSutra
And
The doctrine of the Self shines brilliantly; it is like the rising of the apocalyptic fire [lit., the fire of the end of the world, yug-anta-agni], burning up the forest of Self-lessness, wiping away the faults of the heretics. ~ Lankavatara Sutra

As you can see CONTEXT is extremely important.
Furthermore being on the Subject of CONTEXT the rest of the Buddha Nature Sutras actually go into detail explaining why the upaya not self teachings were taught to begin with.

Nirvana Sutra V464. While a Bodhisattva discourses thus about the quality of the Self, ordinary people do not but impute various false concepts to the Self just as when asked about the attributes of the sword the [ministers] reply that it is like the horn of a ram. These ordinary people generate false views in succession from one on to the other. In order to eliminate such false views, the Tathagata reveals and discourses on the non-existence of a self just as when the prince tells his various ministers that there is no such sword in his treasury. Noble Son, the True Self that the Tathagata expounds today is called the Buddha-dhatu [Buddha-Nature]. this manner of Buddha-dhatu is shown in the Buddha-Dharma with the example of the real sword.l Noble Son, should there be any ordinary person who is able well to expound this, then he [speaks] in accordance with unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma. Should there be anyone who is well able to distinguish this in accordance with what has been expounded regarding it, then you should know that he has the nature of a Bodhisattva.

As you can see the Buddha only taught the Buddha Nature as Anatta in the Lankavatarava to help remove the false concepts imputed upon the True Self(Buddha Nature).

And
When non-Self is talked about, common mortals say that there cannot be Self in the Buddhist teaching. One who is wise should know that non-Self is a temporary existence and is not true. Knowing thus, one should not have any doubt.
And
Because of this, the Tathagata teaches and says no-self. This is to adjust beings and because he is aware of the occasion. Such non-self is, as occasion arises, spoken of, and it is [also] said that there is the Self.

In the end it is very very important to (1) actually have more than 1 passage to support your position. And (2) actually know the CONTEXT of your 1 passage in the whole overall Tathagatagarbha Doctrine.
Peace and Love

krodha wrote:
This is simply just copied and pasted from your rather ill informed post on reddit. And like I said there, you really have no idea what you're talking about, being a biased intellectual (who admitted to having no experiential insight into these matters), prone to faulty interpretation and bad logic. Why you insist on parading your half baked theories as anything that even remotely resembles a valid take on these topics is something I fail to understand.

Not to mention, the thickness of your confirmation biases is truly unparalleled.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Yes, when I was in Tenerife last April Rinpoche said Shang Shung will be publishing the sgra thal gyur along with info from two separate commentaries, and Rinpoche's own commentary.

heart said:
Wow, any idea when?

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Not sure when, hopefully soon. I thought you were there too when he made the announcement, it was last day (or maybe second to last day) of the retreat we were at. Although I do remember you had to leave early to catch your flight so perhaps he made the announcement after you left.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
From Bronkhorst's preface to "Buddhist Teaching In India": The Buddha himself was clearly averse to any kind of speculation, and he positively avoided “philosophically” important questions.
Something to keep in mind, perhaps.

krodha wrote:
Right, however the Buddha chose to decline answering the fourteen 'unanswered' questions because they are non-sensical from his point of view (due to being predicated upon delusion).

The Mahā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra explains:

To reply to the fourteen difficult questions would be to commit a fault. If you ask what type is the size or the physique of a son of a barren woman and an eunuch, that would not deserve an answer, for such a son does not exist.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Jikan said:
with regard to the upcoming (starting tomorrow) webcast:

Is there a publication coming out involving (or including) this tantra?  Of course receiving the transmission on its own is important.  I also wonder if it's intended to make certain studies and practices possible in the future too.

krodha wrote:
Yes, when I was in Tenerife last April Rinpoche said Shang Shung will be publishing the sgra thal gyur along with info from two separate commentaries, and Rinpoche's own commentary.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
As we know, jñāna is in Tibetan ye shes. Some of the Tibetan schools, including Dzogchen if I am not mistaken, hold ye shes to be eternal.

krodha wrote:
Ye shes is not considered to be ultimately real or "eternal" (in the sense you mean) in Dzogpachenpo.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 10:50 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
Jinzang said:
Every Kagyu teacher (Drikung and Kamtsang) I've heard teaching on emptiness has presented  Jamgon Kongtrul's view of the subject. However, the view presented is more nuanced than Malcolm suggests. The buddha qualities are beyond conception, neither existent nor non-existent, and thus not subject to Nagarjuna's critique.

krodha wrote:
My Drikung lama goes with Nāgārjuna when explaining emptiness... and Nāgārjuna's view does not negate Buddha qualities, it simply says they are merely conventional in nature, like everything else.

Hence his statement:

Where emptiness is possible, everything is possible.
Where emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
smcj said:
You're aware that Thrangu R., senior khenpo for the Karma Kagyus and teacher to all 4 regents, is solidly a Shentongpa, right?

krodha wrote:
Sure. Thrangu Rinpoche's own view does not translate to a gzhan stong majority in the Kagyu overall, however.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
smcj said:
That's why I titled the thread "Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas"

krodha wrote:
Which is an assertion you're welcome to and entitled to make. Proving or backing up said assertion with hard evidence is a different story though.

If anything I think this thread has shown that people consider the kagyu to be a healthy mix of views... so I'm not sure where the idea of a gzhan stong majority comes from.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
In any case, all of this goes to show that the discussion in the other (Mipham was not gzhan stong) thread is between gzhan stong and spros bral, and not kagyu and nyingma.

smcj said:
Well, yes and no. Here I can quote Kongtrul's position as authoritative (at least for Karma Kagyupas). On the other forum even Dudjom R.'s position was discounted.

krodha wrote:
Yes, at least for karma kagyus, therefore the kagyu view is not unanimously gzhan stong in nature and varies.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
krodha wrote:
In any case, all of this goes to show that the discussion in the other (Mipham was not gzhan stong) thread is between gzhan stong and spros bral, and not kagyu and nyingma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
smcj said:
Out of curiosity, if you don't mind, who is your lama?

krodha wrote:
Drubpon Gonpo Dorje Rinpoche

smcj said:
Also, since you used it to juxtapose with Shentong, I take it that you are using "spros bral" as a synonym for Madyamaka. Or are you using it in the Mahamudra sense of "simplicity".

krodha wrote:
I'm using spros bral to indicate a freedom from proliferation or extremes. And yes it accords with Madhyamaka aka Nāgārjuna etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
I think we Kagyupas should leave these poor people alone for a while. After all we are in the Nyingma sub forum.

krodha wrote:
At this point we are discussing gzhan stong and spros bral, and not kagyu and nyingma. My kagyu lama upholds the view of spros bral, so this discussion has departed from the whole kagyu-nyingma thing now.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 10:09 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Your question has already been answered

All phenomena is the same nature of Suchness just like how all pottery are made of the same clay, however even though all pottery are made out of the same clay, there are still various different pieces of pottery. this describes the releationship between Enlightenment and non enlightenment. Like wise all phenomena  merely exist in illusion; and are from the beginning, nonexistent; and from the beginningless beginning have never been united with the Tathagata-garbha.

much like how an mirage is experienced and believed to be real however in reality the mirage is just an non existent illusion.



Two relationships exist between the enlightened and nonenlightened states. They are "identity" and "nonidentity".

(1) Identity 
Just as pieces of various kinds of pottery are of the same nature in that they are made of clay, so the various magic-like manifestations (maya) of both enlightenment (anasrava: nondefilement) and nonenlightenment (avidya: ignorance) are aspects of the same essence, Suchness. For this reason, it is said in a sutra that "all sentient beings intrinsically abide in eternity and are entered into nirvana. The state of enlightenment is not something that is to be acquired by practice or to be created. In the end, it is unobtainable [for it is given from the beginning]." Also it has no corporeal aspect that can be perceived as such. Any corporeal aspects [such as the marks of the Buddha] that are visible are magic-like products of Suchness manifested in accordance with the mentality of men in defilement. It is not, however, that these corporeal aspects which result from the suprarational functions of wisdom are of the nature of nonemptiness [i.e., substantial]; for wisdom has no aspects that can be perceived.

(2) Nonidentity 
Just as various pieces of pottery differ from each other, so differences exist between the state of enlightenment and that of nonenlightenment, and between the magic-like manifestations of Suchness manifested in accordance with the mentality of men in defilement, and those of men of ignorance who are defiled [i.e., blinded] as to the essential nature of Suchness.


This being so, it is ludicrous to assert that the ultimate is empty of all relative phenomena. Such an assertion directly contradicts the words of the Buddha. It is one thing to claim "tathāgatagarbha is empty of adventitious afflictions." It is quite another to claim that the ultimate is empty of all relative phenomena. The ultimate is merely the emptiness of all phenomena, there is no other ultimate that can be found.
The Tathagata-garbha, from the beginning, contains only pure excellent qualities which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, are not independent of, severed from, or different from Suchness;

that the soiled states of defilement which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, are not independent of, severed from, or different from Suchness; that the soiled states of defilement which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, merely exist in illusion; are, from the beginning, nonexistent; and from the beginningless beginning have never been united with the Tathagata-garbha.


It has never happened that the Tathagata-garbha contained deluded states in its essence and that it induced itself to realize Suchness in order to extinguish forever its deluded states.

krodha wrote:
You should follow the TOS and clearly cite who, what, where, when you are quoting. Because again, as was pointed out to you elsewhere, no one can tell what is your writing and what is a quote, and I think you use this to your advantage in a sneaky way in order to make your post appear authoritative.

Cite the text or adept you are quoting and place the quote text in a box, itallics or with quotation marks around it.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
I mean the same thing that Sherlock means, whatever his reference term would be.....
I am assuming it is gzhi, and not kun gzhi.

krodha wrote:
Oh I see now, I missed the kun bzang smon lam reference.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
Ok.  Mind is empty, and therefore there is no impediment.  Display arises.  We mistake display for subject/object. We reify.  I'm with you.  So, we purify the kleshas, bakchaks, what-have-you.  When purified,reification no longer occurs.  Does display still occur?   If so, from where?  Even if subject/object duality is exhausted by the purification of all stains, there is the base, yes?

krodha wrote:
By "base" do you mean "gzhi"?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
I agree, Sherlock, and I've tortured that poor metaphor enough, I suppose.

But--if mind is a conditioned phenomenon, like all other Dharmas, and therefore impermanent--and yet it is where Buddhahood is found, what is wisdom?  Does it differ from mind?  Is it newly created? Or is it a fundamental change of state?  Or merely the result of purifying adventitious stains?

krodha wrote:
The way I see it, "wisdom" [ye shes] is just a moniker attributed to a mind that cognizes its own nature as non-arisen (or the nature of phenomena as non-arisen).


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
krodha wrote:
IMO the water isn't the important aspect of the watermoon metaphor, the fact that the moon appears yet is not real is the salient part, because all phenomena are like that.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, this thread is an embarrassment. If anyone who actually reads the book wants to talk about it, I'll be back.

krodha wrote:
This issue goes to the very core of these traditions, systems and doctrines, and is therefore far deeper than some book that was just recently written within the last hundred years. It isn't as if this book is bringing some fresh, new and unheard of side to this argument... which is centuries old.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
It is wishful thinking of Buddhists who are attempting to quell their existential angst, by refusing to even look at a book which could topple their cherished views.

krodha wrote:
Except for the fact that my view on this matter is not derived from the intellect, and nothing can "topple" it. Which is to say; you cannot pass me salt and convince me it is sugar.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I can't seem to get you to understand that this is the Academic Discussion subforum.

krodha wrote:
And I can't seem to get you to understand that there is absolutely no hard evidence that Śākyamuni, or anyone else was teaching that there is an ātman... all there can be is extrapolated conjecture and wishful thinking.

dzogchungpa said:
The man was an extremely highly respected scholar.

krodha wrote:
Which really doesn't mean much in a context like this. Scholars are no more exempt from falling victim to their delusions and fantasies than anyone else.

dzogchungpa said:
He wrote a book.

krodha wrote:
Yes, congratulations.

dzogchungpa said:
Why don't you read it before commenting?

krodha wrote:
I'm sorry but reading this book is not a necessary prerequisite for having a discussion about whether or not Buddhism promotes an ātman or brahman.

dzogchungpa said:
You are asserting that someone is cherry picking. In this subforum, if you make an accusation like that you are expected to provide some evidence.

krodha wrote:
Like I said, the evidence is in the very fact that such a position is being argued to begin with.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
That he is cherry picking is a given.

dzogchungpa said:
Prove it.

krodha wrote:
The burden of proof in this context is placed upon the shoulders of those who wish to "prove" that the buddhadharma is teaching some form of sanatanadharma.

Since this cannot be proven, because it is little more than the wishful thinking of eternalists who are attempting to quell their existential angst, any attempts on my part to prove they are wrong would be a waste of time.

I don't have to prove that water is wet, or that fire is hot, or that the buddhadharma denies an ātman.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Are you trying to suggest that Bhattacharya engages in cherry picking in his book?

krodha wrote:
That he is cherry picking is a given.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 2:45 PM
Title: Tantra vs. Sutra Buddha Nature
Content:
Will said:
While Tathagatagarbha texts have no problem with the term 'atman', using it with a profound, impersonal sense, even Dzogchen fears it not.  At least not in this text by Padmasambhava:

krodha wrote:
The tathāgatagarbha sūtras implement the term "ātman" as a literary device that is an upāya employed for the sake of ātmavādins who cling to heterodox views and fear emptiness... this is stated clearly in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra.

Also, Dzogchen rejects an ātman outright. Longchenpa states:

The final [turning] for the sake of those who had reached fulfillment and who were of sharpest capacity taught the nature of all that is knowable, as it really is. As such, it bears no similarity to the self [ātman] of the Hindu heretics because these people in their ignorance speak of a 'self' that does not actually exist, being a mere imputation superimposed on reality.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 2:06 PM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
Open letter to SoB;

These guys are doing some nit-picking. In saying that Shentong isn't Indian is like saying "there was no America pre-1776." Well yes and no. The land was there. There Founding Fathers were all alive. The pressure was building for independence, but it had not yet come to fruit. So no, as a nation the U.S. wasn't really formalized until the Constitution was ratified. But your (SoB's) analogous argument is that the history of America goes back further than the Declaration of Independence. Both positions are right, and to make it a contentious issue seems somewhat ridiculous.

krodha wrote:
We could play this game with Prasanga Madhyamaka as well... Nāgārjuna's treatises set the stage for what later became Prasangika Madhyamaka in Tibet, but that still doesn't mean that Prasangika is Indian. Same goes for gzhan stong, just because the tathāgatagarbha sūtras and the Yogācāra literature set the stage for the formation of gzhan stong in Tibet, does not make gzhan stong "Indian".

On another note; why you're catering to Son of Buddha's whimsical misinterpretations and misconceptions I have no idea... he is "nitpicking" just as much, except he is far less informed on these topics.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Then quit making false unsupported statement about Shentong(other emptiness) and I won't have to post numerous quotes showing what you are saying is incorrect.

krodha wrote:
The only texts that you can quote are tathāgatagarbha and Yogācāra sutras, which are not gzhan stong.

Son of Buddha said:
(1) the idea that Shentong is a Tibetan invention is false, Shentong is literally taught in Buddhist Indian Holy texts.

krodha wrote:
No, it isn't, the doctrines that gzhan stong piggybacks off of are taught in Indian texts, which are the aforementioned tathāgatagarbha and Yogācāra texts.

Son of Buddha said:
(2) the idea that Shentong did not exist in India is false again Shentong is literally taught in INDIAN Buddhist Holy texts.

krodha wrote:
Again, no, you are incorrect... you may find the fundamental tenets that gzhan stong was formulated from, but that is not gzhan stong.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Dude Shentong is simply the Buddhist teaching of Emptiness of Other which is found in Buddhist Sutras and Tantra's. The Emptiness if other(Shentong) teaching is not a Tibetan invention..I have already proven that with numerous quotes up above.

krodha wrote:
You haven't "proven" anything other than the fact that you are deluded by your own whimsical ideas that have to tangible application in reality.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
LoL
Sherlock stated : gzhan stong did not exist in India.

And my above quote is about Shentong(other emptiness) and that quote comes from an INDIAN sutra

krodha wrote:
No, it is not about gzhan stong... you are simply reading something that you believe loosely resembles gzhan stong and asserting that it is such.

Son of Buddha said:
which proves Shentong did exist in India.

krodha wrote:
What it "proves" is that you are seeing what you want to see, and that involves seeing something that isn't there.

Son of Buddha said:
I can also quote other INDIAN Buddhist Sutras and commentaries that prove Shentong existed in India.

krodha wrote:
No, you cannot. You can quote sūtras that speak of tathāgatagarbha and those that speak of Yogācāra, but not gzhan stong.

Son of Buddha said:
So next time read the whole conversation before posting please.

krodha wrote:
I read the conversation. The issue is that you are plainly mistaken and deluding yourself with your own fantasies, per usual.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
You don't understand what you are talking about, you cannot separate Shentong from the Tathagatagarbha seeing as Shentong IS literally the understanding of emptiness in relegation to the Tathagatagarbha. Like wise the entire Third Turning is based on Shentong(other emptiness) and Tathagatagarhha and this can easily be proven.

Queen Srimala Sutra.” Chapter 9: The true understanding of the meaning of emptiness V97.   O’ Bhagavan, the wisdom of the Buddha Nature is the World Honored One’s wisdom of Sunyata[Emptiness]. The Buddha Nature is not something that has been seen or realized by any Arhat, or Pratyekabuddha. There are two types of Emptiness wisdom concerning the Buddha Nature which are as follows. (1) The Buddha nature is empty from, separate from, independent from and different from all the stores of defilement. (2) The Buddha nature is not-empty from, is not separate from, not independent from and not different from the inconceivable Buddha Attributes which are more numerous than the sands of the river Ganges. V98.   O Bhagavan, The great Sravaka’s can have faith and entrust themselves to the Buddha through the two types of emptiness wisdom of the Buddha Nature. All the disciples and Pratyekabuddhas are stuck in the domain of the four inverse views because of their incorrect knowledge of emptiness. This is why none of the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas have ever seen or attained the Buddha Nature. Only the Buddha’s have experienced the extinction of all suffering and destroyed all the stores of defilement. They alone have practiced all the paths which lead to the extinction of suffering.

krodha wrote:
This quote does not apply to the discussion at all and says nothing about the topic at hand... it is abundantly self-evident that you are the one who does not understand what they are talking about.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
Bottom of 300-top of 301.

When Dudjom speaks of the "3rd Turning" he's talking about "Great Madhyamaka", a.k.a. Shentong.

krodha wrote:
First point that has been discussed to death:

Malcolm said:
It is sort of ridiculous to term gzhan stong "great madhyamaka" since it is a term used to describe several different positions amongst Tibetan Madhyamakas i.e. gzhan stong; the early Sakya/Nyingma view of free from extremes that goes right back to Kawa Paltseg, and of course Tsongkhapa's formulation.

The Indian texts also show no consistency in how the term is used, the anonymous pramāṇavidhvaṃsanaṭippiṭakavṛtti refers to its adherents as "great madhyamaka" and rejects the so called cittamatra madhyamaka [that Bhava advocates in the passage you reference] as inferior.

In reality, in the Indian context, "great madhyamaka is a term mostly used in tantric treatises; even here however it is used in various different ways. The Śrī-kālacakropadeśayogaṣaḍaṇgatantrapañjikā by Avadhutipāda states:
"The nature of the completion [stage] is said to be mahāmadhyamaka".
On other hand, the Śrī-ḍākārṇavamahāyoginītantrarājasyaṭīkāvohitaṭikā by Padmavajra states:
So called "madhyamaka" is the dharma of the essence, the freedom from four extremes of the mahāmadhyamaka of the Mahāyāna and the awakening of the fortunate.
Dombi Heruka's Śrīhevajrasādhana states:
One should mediate on the great madhyamaka free from all signs.
And the Tantric Candrakiriti's Samājābhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti states
Having manifested the mahāmadhyamaka that is like space, 
the sunlight of compassion benefits all sentient beings
The first person to use this term [Great Madhyamaka] in Tibet was Kawa Paltseg. He uses the term dbu ma chen po to refer to spros bral, freedom from extremes. His presentation of Madhyamaka bears no observable commonalities with gzhan stong.

The Sakyapas follow Kawa Paltseg's point of view, and refer to their Madhyamaka as great Madhyamaka also. The Gelugpas also refer to Lama Tsongkhapa's point of view as Great Madhyamaka.

So basically, everyone in Tibet refers to their preferred system of Madhyamaka as "great".
The term “great madhyamaka” has been used by all three primary Tibetan presentations of Madhyamaka, i.e. Tsongkhapa’s presentation of prasangika, the extrinsic emptiness school of the Jonangpas and the Sakya presentation known as “freedom from proliferation” or “freedom from extremes”.

Though the term “great madhyamaka” is not frequently used in the Sakya school to refer to our own presentation of Madhyamaka, it does occasionally crop up. The basis of the Great Madhyamaka of the Sakya masters is to be found primarily in the writings of Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen who states in his Great Song of Experience:

Freedom from extremes is beyond knowledge, expressions and objects,
Madhyamaka, Cittamatra and so on,
expressions in words are proliferations...
That view of Great Madhyamaka
is bliss free of delusion because it is not a proposition.

Another such instance may be found in the works of Lowo Khenchen, Sonam Lhundrup [1456-1532] who most notable for his expansions on Sakya Pandita’s famed Clarifying the Muni’s Intent [thub pa’i dgongs pa rab tu gsal]. In the brief work ,Ornamenting the Intent of Manjushri [thub pa dgongs gsal gyi 'chad thabs 'jam dbyangs dgongs rgyan], Lowo Khenchen identifies three strains of Madhyamaka:

Out of the three in Madhyamaka, the prasangikas maintain that one gradually enters the practice of the ten stages according to the explanations in The Introduction to Madhyamaka. The svatantrika madhyamikas maintain that one enters into the practice of Mahayāna through three stages of practice as it is explained in the Blaze of Dialectics “Not abandoning bodhicitta, correctly relying on the strict conduct of a muni, the search for understanding reality is the practice that accomplishes all aims”.

For the position of the third madhyamika, as Master Nāgārjuna states:

The Dharma taught by the Buddha
uses two truths.

Having gathered all phenomena into two truths, [they] maintain practice is applied to two classes of intellectual capacity, sharp and dull, of persons who are practicing those [two truths]:

When seeking reality, first
one should teach “everything exists”;
having comprehend meanings, and lacking desire,
later, [teach] absence.

Master Āryadeva teaches:

First, reject what is not meritorious,
in the middle, reject the self,
in the end, reject all views.

As Jetsun Rinpoche writes in the Great Song of Experience:

The supreme view is without views...
generally, there is no object to see in reality,
now, also, the view is not a view.
As for me, I will just stick with the great madhyamaka enunciated by Kawa Paltseg:

Freedom of two extremes in the ultimate
is asserted as the great madhyamaka.

krodha wrote:
Second point that has also been discussed quite thoroughly:

smcj said:
Also Nagarjuna's "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" (the title in the English translation) is non-Prasangika text that shockingly is attributed to Nagarjuna.

Malcolm said:
That is because Nāgārjuna I did not write it. The author of the Dharmadhātustava is the same Nāgārjuna who wrote the Bodhicittavivarana and the Pañcakrama.

...The earliest reference we have to the Dharmadhātustava being a composition of Nāgārjuna is by Dharmamitra (9th century, disciple of Haribhadra) in his Abhisamayālaṃkārakārikāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstraṭīkā prasphuṭapadā-nāma . Naropa considers it to be a composition of Nāgārjuna's, as does Atisha and Jagaddalanivāsin. However, a commentary on Hevajra Tantra, likely composed in the 12th century, cites a passage from the Dharmadhātustava, saying only that "some ārya said,"...." — this indicates to me some doubt in Indian circles as to the veracity of the source.

So while of course there is a late tradition that this text was composed by Nāgārjuna dating from the ninth century (Dharmamitra), the absence of any reference to it all in earlier Madhyamaka sources, especially Candrakīrti, indicates it cannot be accepted as part of Nāgārjuna I's oeuvre. David Ruegg has also cast doubt on its composition, wondering at the fact that significant portions of it are reproduced in Atisha's Dharmadhātudarśanagīti which is included in the rgyud section of the bstan 'gyur, but I think Atisha was just riffing on it.

Given that the fact that 10th-11th century Indians like Naropoa and Atisha accepted the Mulamadhyamaka-karikas and the Pañcakrama side by side as the work of the same Nāgārjuna, I think we can understand that they did not know how to distinguish the authentic works of Nāgārjuna I from works by later authors of the same name.

Then there is the fact that the Dharmadhātustava was not translated into Tibetan until the 11th century ((like the Bodhicittavivarana and so on) by Kṛṣṇa Paṇḍita and Lotsawa Tsultrim Gyalwa, and I think we can understand this text was probably composed in early ninth century by the siddha Nāgārjuna. Also, if you examine carefully, you will find only that Candra mentions four praises as being authentic, these are the Lokakīta, Nirupamya, Acintya and Paramārthastavas. This does not mean these four are in fact compositions of Nāgārjuna, merely that they are a restricted list accepted by the middle period Madhyamikas (we can excluded the Madhyamakapradipa, because Bhavya and Bhavaviveka are different people).


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Nope. What characterizes a  gzhan strong pa is the literal acceptance of the empty of other teachings, all other shentong views are supportive and secondary to the Empty of other teachings.

krodha wrote:
So-called "empty of other" simply means that buddha-qualities are not negated... and nothing more.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
"This Dharmata IS the Tatahagata"

No the quotation I cited is saying the Dharmata IS the Tatgagata.......literally word for word.

krodha wrote:
Yes, if you are going to take a literal-minded stance on the excerpt, which you are known to do quite religiously.

The tathāgata is compared to dharmatā in this context in order to convey that a Buddha is completely unconditioned and free of all defilement, the nature of the tathāgata is precisely what is entailed by the concept of "dharmatā". And so one should view the tathāgata as completely unconditioned. As Malcolm pointed out just recently, the tathāgata is technically dharmakāya and should be seen as such:

[Per Malcolm] The Ārya-aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states:

Those who are attached to the tathāgata as a form or a name are childish and have corrupted discerning wisdom… the tathāgatas are not to be seen as the rūpakāya; the tathāgatās are to be seen as the dharmakāya.

The statement: tathāgata is dharmatā and the advice given directly above that one should view the tathāgata as dharmakāya, should be understood to have the same import.

Son of Buddha said:
Everything you just said is made up.

krodha wrote:
Are you saying that the fact that buddha-qualities and afflicted qualities have the same essence is something I, myself, have fabricated? I don't think so.

Or are you stating that defilements are not adventitious? I recall that you, yourself just wrote above that defilements are "adventurous", whether that was a typo or not I have no idea but you certainly meant to state that defilements are "adventitious", why you would charge me with fabricating such a notion in the wake of your own proclamation to that end I have no idea.

Son of Buddha said:
Of course I guess if someone told you SOB IS half Asian..... You would come to the conclusion that his statement is merely comparing the Asian and the Half in order to convey similarities.........of course OBVIOUSLY saying SOB is half Asian doesn't mean SOB IS half Asian.

krodha wrote:
This makes absolutely no sense. You will have to unpack your example here further.

Son of Buddha said:
Just like saying the Dharmata is the Tathagata doesn't mean the Dharmata IS the Tathagata..........gotta love your logic on these topics.

krodha wrote:
The nature of the tathāgata is the nature of dharmatā, but the tathāgata is not literally "dharmatā". For one, dharmatā is not even real, it is a conventional designation that is implemented in order to communicate that conditioned dharmins are in fact non-arisen and unconditioned, so we state provisionally that they have a "dharmatā". Once one experientially recognizes that dharmatā it isn't as if there is some "thing" called "dharmatā" that remains and hangs around... recognizing "dharmatā" simply means one cognizes the lack of arising in conditioned entities. Dharmatā is simply what is recognized when there is a cessation of cause for the arising of the ignorance that misconceives of conditioned entities. Much like Longchenpa communicates when describing the dharmatā of mind:

Mind itself [tib. sems nyid, skt. cittatā or citta dharmatā]... has no substance or characteristics. Since it is empty yet lucid and free of elaboration, it cannot be conceived of as 'this' or 'that'. Although it can be illustrated by a metaphor - 'It is like space' - if one reflects on space as the metaphor, it proves to have no color, no shape, or anything about it that is identifiable. Therefore, if the metaphor being used does not refer to some 'thing', then the underlying meaning that it illustrates - mind itself, pure by nature - is not something that has ever existed in the slightest.

Son of Buddha said:
Sorry I have no more time for your blatent denial of what is literally written.

krodha wrote:
Things that are written are "literal" by definition... what we are concerned with is how said literature is interpreted and processed after it is read. In your case, you interpret these texts "literally", which means you simply take them at face-value without taking any other context into consideration. And this causes issues.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Oh oh had to add this

Awakening of faith in Mahayana text

it should be understood that the Tathagata-garbha, from the beginning, contains only pure excellent qualities which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, are not independent of, severed from, or different from Suchness; that the soiled states of defilement which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, are not independent of, severed from, or different from Suchness

krodha wrote:
This is simply stating that buddha-qualities and afflicted qualities have the same essence, i.e. emptiness.

Son of Buddha said:
that the soiled states of defilement which, outnumbering the sands of the Ganges, merely exist in illusion; are, from the beginning, nonexistent; and from the beginningless beginning have never been united with the Tathagata-garbha.

krodha wrote:
This is merely stating that defilements are adventitious.

Son of Buddha said:
It has never happened that the Tathagata-garbha contained deluded states in its essence and that it induced itself to realize Suchness in order to extinguish forever its deluded states.

krodha wrote:
Again this is simply saying that delusion and affliction are adventitious.

The fact that one's nature is originally pure and naturally perfected is not in question, and is really not what we are discussing here.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
asunthatneversets,.................

Sigh your just further supporting what I have been saying all along.......

krodha wrote:
I'm really not, because I don't think you understand these principles as well as you believe you do, in fact I think you misinterpret them altogether... but you're welcome to believe whatever you like.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
So no, dharmatā is not the "fully realized tathāgata". The two terms are completely different principles.

All sentient beings have an unconditioned nature [dharmatā], however only tathāgatas have a complete and unobscured knowledge (or wisdom) of dharmatā.

Son of Buddha said:
You sure about that?Nirvana Sutra chapter 8

This “Dharmata” is the Tathagata. Hence, the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging. Any person who says that the Tathagata is non-eternal does not know “Dharmata”. Such a person is not one to base oneself upon. All the four persons mentioned above appear in the world, protect, realise and become a refuge [for all beings]. Why? Because they thoroughly understand the deepest points of what the Tathagata says and know that the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging. It is not good to say that the Tathagata is non-eternal and that he changes.

krodha wrote:
Yes, very sure. This quotation you have cited is merely comparing the tathāgata to dharmatā in order to convey that the tathāgata is unconditioned, unchanging etc.

Son of Buddha said:
“The four persons, when they are such, are the Tathagata. Why? Because such well understand and speak about the undisclosed words of the Tathagata. One who well understands what is deeply hidden and knows that the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging will never, for profit, say that the Tathagata is non-eternal. Such a person is one to base oneself upon – why not on those four persons?

krodha wrote:
This is saying the same; the tathāgata is unconditioned.

Son of Buddha said:
“Basing oneself upon Dharma means basing oneself upon “Dharmata”; not basing oneself on man refers to the sravaka. “Dharmata” is the Tathagata, and the sravaka is the created. The Tathagata is Eternal, but the sravaka is non-eternal.

krodha wrote:
Again, this is merely comparing the tathāgata to dharmatā in order to demonstrate that the tathāgata is not the śrāvaka. These are common polemical assertions that are employed in Mahāyāna texts in order to delineate the differences between Mahāyāna and the Śrāvakayāna.

Son of Buddha said:
“O good man! A man might violate the precepts and, for gain, say that the Tathagata is non-eternal and that he changes. Such a person is not one to take refuge in. O good man! This is a definite rule.

krodha wrote:
This quote does not apply to the topic we are discussing, but it does run with the general theme of the others you cited in that it is making a point to state that the tathāgata is unconditioned.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Enlightenment/Dharmakaya is the same thing as the Buddha Nature...... I proved that in my last post to you.

asunthatneversets said:
Dharmakāya is the same as tathāgatagarbha in the sense that an oak tree and an acorn are the same thing... but at the same time an acorn is not an oak tree, it simply holds the latent possibility for an oak tree that must be ripened through fertile causes and conditions.

The same principle applies to the tathāgatagarbha, hence the iconic metaphor applied to tathāgatagarbha of the butter that is latent within milk.

Son of Buddha said:
Nope the Buddha Nature is just a WORD/TERM that is used to describe the state of Full Enlightenment(Dharmakaya) when it is obscured by adventurous defilements. Simple as that.

krodha wrote:
And so you reiterate my point: tathāgatagarbha is to dharmakāya as an acorn is to an oak tree. The two are the same in essence, but are different in nature.

The tathāgatagarbha only becomes "dharmakāya" when it is fully ripened by way of removing adventitious defilements, otherwise sentient beings would be fully awakened Buddhas. This is why the Hevajra Tantra states:

Ordinary beings are truly buddhas, but this fact is obscured by adventitious distortions, once these are removed, truly there is buddhahood.


Son of Buddha said:
Queen Srimala Sutra] 8-9. The Dharmakaya and the Meaning of Void-ness
"Lord, the cessation of suffering is not the destruction of Dharma. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya of the Tathágata is named 'cessation of suffering,' and it is beginning-less, un-create, unborn, undying, free from death; permanent, steadfast, calm, eternal; intrinsically pure, free from all the defilement-store; and accompanied by Buddha natures more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, which are non-discrete, knowing as liberated, and inconceivable. This Dharmakaya of the Tathágata when not free from the store of defilement is referred to as the Tathágata-garbha.

krodha wrote:
This is simply a different translation of the same exact quote you cited above which states unequivocally that dharmakāya is the omniscience of a Buddha, and that all sentient beings possess a latent potentiality for said omniscience.

Son of Buddha said:
Awakening of faith in Mahayana
B. The Greatness of the Attributes of Suchness

From the beginning, Suchness in its nature is fully provided with all excellent qualities; namely, it is endowed with the light of great wisdom, the qualities of illuminating the entire universe, of true cognition and mind pure in its self-nature; of eternity, bliss, Self, and purity; of refreshing coolness, immutability, and freedom. It is endowed with these excellent qualities which outnumber the sands of the Ganges, which are not independent of, disjointed from, or different from the essence of Suchness, and which are suprarational attributes of Buddhahood. Since it is endowed completely with all these, and is not lacking anything, it is called the Tathagata-garbha when latent and also the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata.

krodha wrote:
This states the same; all sentient beings possess a latent potential for omniscience because one's nature is innately perfected yet completely obscured in the case of a sentient being. Ergo, omniscience is a latent potentiality, much like butter is a latent potentiality within milk.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Are you trying to claim the Dharmata is NOT the fully realised Tathagata?

krodha wrote:
"Dharmatā" is the nature of a given dharma, specifically that a given conditioned dharmin is in truth unconditioned and non-arisen. So when you see the term "dharmatā" it should be considered indicative of the unconditioned nature of a given phenomena, i.e. its emptiness.

When we fail to recognize the dharmatā of dharmas we become deluded and perceive conditioned entities. As that conditioning proliferates and builds up that delusion becomes fortified and this propels cyclic existence as sentient beings. A tathāga is one who has removed all traces of delusion and conditioning, and thus possesses a complete and unobstructed knowledge of dharmatā, that omniscience is called "dharmakāya".

So no, dharmatā is not the "fully realized tathāgata". The two terms are completely different principles.

All sentient beings have an unconditioned nature [dharmatā], however only tathāgatas have a complete and unobscured knowledge (or wisdom) of dharmatā.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Out of context.....really well by all means I gave you the Sutra name, the chapter and not just one sentence but an entire paragraph.....so by all means quote the rest of the "context" that supports your position..........................cricket....cricket.

krodha wrote:
You'll have to spell out what you believe the quotation is supporting. Because it certainly says nothing about how bodhi relates to any of this.

All the quotation describes is the omniscience of a Buddha at the time of the result, and then states that all sentient beings possess this potential within them.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Enlightenment/Dharmakaya is the same thing as the Buddha Nature...... I proved that in my last post to you.

krodha wrote:
Dharmakāya is the same as tathāgatagarbha in the sense that an oak tree and an acorn are the same thing... but at the same time an acorn is not an oak tree, it simply holds the latent possibility for an oak tree that must be ripened through fertile causes and conditions.

The same principle applies to the tathāgatagarbha, hence the iconic metaphor applied to tathāgatagarbha of the butter that is latent within milk.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
At what point dies the beginingless unborn Enlightenment arises due to causes and conditions?

Queen Srimala Sutra Chapter 8: The Dharmakaya V96.   O’ Bhagavan, the extinction of suffering is not the destruction of the Dharma. Why so? Because the ‘extinction of suffering’ is known as the Dharmakaya of the World Honored One, which is beginningless, uncreated, unborn, undying, free from destruction, permanent unchanging, eternal, inherently pure, and separate from all the stores of defilement. The Dharmakaya is also not different from the inconceivable Buddha Natures which are more numerous than the sands of the river Ganges. The Dharmakaya of the World Honored One is called the Buddha Nature when it is obscured by the stores of defilement.”

krodha wrote:
As we've discussed before: your nature is not "bodhi". Bodhi is awakening to your nature. Your nature does not arise due to causes and conditions because it does not arise at all... but the wisdom that knows said nature does arise due to causes and conditions... otherwise you'd be a fully awakened Buddha from the very beginning.

Your quote is out of context because it concerns dharmakāya, which is the result as the omniscience of a Buddha.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
I've been accused of the same thing, and I'm not sure that there isn't some seed of truth to it--although of course I'd like to think otherwise. The problem comes from what, if anything, the Buddha Nature is presented as. Saying that it is anything at all is a slippery slope that ends up like Advaita Vedanta, and much time and effort is made to keep things from going there. I'm ok with much of it, as long as it is understood to be absent of the "adventitious defilements", which is basically what we know of mundane life.

krodha wrote:
Yes there are different interpretations of tathāgatagarbha, the more literal minded tend to err towards non-Buddhist views. Such interpretations are deemed "provisional" or "worldly".

smcj said:
The Buddha Nature teachings say that "enlightenment" is not due to causes and conditions. It's a different take on things, hence all the "sudden enlightenment" traditions and teachings. How it differs from dharmata is subject to much discussion.

krodha wrote:
They state that your nature is uncaused, that nature is tathāgatagarbha. "Bodhi" [enlightenment] is something different. Bodhi is awakening to that uncaused nature, and that event of awakening does have a cause, otherwise people would be innately awakened, which is not the case.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
You just put down a direct quote from the Nirvana Sutra and proved my entire point to begin with

krodha wrote:
What I'm saying is apparently going over your head, but that is alright.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Self governing is in reference to not being impermenant but having full control from the Enligtenened state
Which is to say Enlightenment is not governed by various causes and conditions, it is not created by samsaric influences nor is is swayed or governed by samsaric adventurous defilement hence it is self governing which cannot be removed,destroyed, controlled....ect.

krodha wrote:
Here you are confusing "enlightenment" [bodhi] which does arise due to causes and conditions, with dharmatā, which does not arise due to causes and conditions.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Its actually not my writing, what I wrote up above is a direct quote from the Nirvana Sutra..... I left out the fact that is was a direct quote from the Sutra to show ASNS  that he is not actually complaining about my views but has actually been complaint about what is taught in the Sutras themselves.

krodha wrote:
The issue is that you misinterpret the rhetorical devices that are employed in texts such as the Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra as being literal descriptions of some sort of existent ātman.

So it makes zero difference whether it is "your writing" or not. The text itself does not communicate what you believe it does (or are suggesting it does by citing it), and that means we are dealing with your own misinterpretations, and not the "text itself".


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Yep you just proved my point to begin with. You see that wasn't actually my view, what I wrote was actually a direct quotation of the Nirvana Sutra chapter 3 (and can also be found found in the queen srimala sutra)...like I said before your not complaining about my views your complaining about the views/quotes from the Sutras themselves and you just PROVED IT right now when you complained about that direct quote from the Nirvana Sutra.

(The noumena part I added comes from Dolpopas view)

krodha wrote:
Why you're pretending like you're not some straight up eternalist ātmavādin I have no idea. Every quote you cite communicates your views. You misinterpret tathāgatagarbha as promoting a non-Buddhist self... and have for years.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
And again I don't present you my views, I simply quote the sutras and let them speak for themselves so you have no point whatsoever.

krodha wrote:
Acting like this is the first time we've ever interacted does not make it so.

Son of Buddha said:
Since your so keen on wanting to complain about my views which I have not provided you then here is "my views on the Self"

the Atman is true, real , eternal , sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing , and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging , The Noumena...... Here complain away. (At least you actually have something to complain about now)

krodha wrote:
My case in point that your views are no different than the tīrthikas evoked in your quotation above.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Really last time I checked I didnt give you my view, I simply quoted and requoted the views of Dolpopa and Ju Mipham's, so if your disagreeing with anything its their views not mine.

krodha wrote:
You and I discuss your view(s) quite regularly... although in that setting you know me as krodha.

Son of Buddha said:
Likewise I have "No views" seeing as I simply only quote the views of the sutras themselves

krodha wrote:
Yet you have views. Cherry picking quotations to match your biases is one way said views are demonstrated, and the context you present those quotes in also communicates your views... for you often take quotations out of context and attribute meaning to them that is inaccurate.

Son of Buddha said:
So if you have a problem with the Sutra quotes, then again you don't have a problem with my views you have a problem with the commentary and sutra quotes themselves.

krodha wrote:
I have no issue with the sūtra quotes. They do not mean what you think they mean... ergo your views are the issue.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Yep in Tathagatagarbha Sutras and commentaries the True Self of the Buddhists was  differentiated from the The two selves of the forders( self of phenoneman and persons).

krodha wrote:
It is different when understood properly, but you do not understand it properly, your view is no different than the tīrthikas you speak of.

Also, there is no "true self"... the only person who takes liberty with that term in the context of the tathāgatagarbha sūtras is Tony Page, who is clearly biased due to being an eternalist, like you.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 10:31 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
Shut Reigle down with sneers, indifference & contempt - yep - this is the academic way.

krodha wrote:
Reigle hasn't put forth anything to be shut down as of yet. The OP consists of (i) an announcement that this text is available, (ii) a quote from the preface, (iii) a bit of background on why the text was authored, (iv) and a call for people to stay open-minded about the topic. This can hardly be called "academic".

If Reigle or anyone else desires an academic discussion they should put forth a statement or argument from the book in support of X view, so that others can chime in and discuss... this has not happened thus far, ergo, no academic discussion has occurred.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Kamaleswar Bhattacharya said:
“The one request I would make of such eminent scholars as have devoted their lives to the study of Buddhism is that they adopt a genuinely Buddhist attitude and read this book before saying, ‘That is impossible.’”

dzogchungpa said:
Good luck with that.
See what I mean?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:32 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, that's quite an impressive mouthful, but you seem to lack the necessary prerequisites for comprehending that this is the Academic Discussion subforum.

krodha wrote:
Like speaking and reading English?

dzogchungpa said:
Why don't you just follow the discussion, maybe you'll learn something? Then again, maybe not.

krodha wrote:
I'm open to learning anything, but as for being convinced that Śākyamuni was promulgating an eternalist doctrine that posits the existence of an ātman and/or Brahman... I've witnessed many try to make successful arguments to that end, but have not encountered any compelling or substantial evidence/proof as of yet. It simply isn't in the cards.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
You wouldn't happen to be an Indologist, would you?

krodha wrote:
If being an Indologist was a necessary prerequisite for comprehending (either inferentially or directly) that an ātman beyond the pale of conventionality is an impossibility, then we'd all be screwed.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
“I have but one answer which I have tried to formulate in various ways in this book, on the basis, invariably, of a study of the Pāli canon and of the Nikāyas in particular, that is: the Buddha does not deny the Upaniṣadic ātman; on the contrary, he indirectly affirms it, in denying that which is falsely believed to be the ātman.”

krodha wrote:
A conclusion of this nature requires quite a bit of extrapolation and conjecture, there really is no evidence that Śākyamuni affirmed the Upanisadic ātman via negation. In fact the Pali Canon states in no uncertain terms that "right view" is a freedom from extremes.

The buddhadharma is not apophatic theology.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
All I have is my mom & siblings and after I finish paying off this house for my mom, I'm more than  likely going to do solitary retreat for a while. I hate going to school and working this job because it distracts me and reading those quotes just frustrated me more because I'm not doing what i know I should be which is practice all the damn time.

krodha wrote:
It's good to spend some time learning/studying, receiving teachings and attending to worldly life prior to going for extended retreat. You'll feel better too when that time comes because you'll have everything in order. You don't want to carry the burden of outstanding responsibilities that are hanging over your head into retreat.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Longchenpa has indeed repeatedly that all these practices shall be construed as to do a retreat in solitude. For him, the practice of " the world " is a practice for beginners , who are unable to renounce the world itself. The isolation facilitates the dissipation of distraction which is the main trap into which fall those who think they can integrate their "experience" of the natural state in their daily activities.

Rise in Primordial Longchenpa said so clearly: "Preserve your samaya and commitments, remain isolated in solitude and abandon the distractions and occupations [ worldly ] (dam dang tshig sdom pa bsrung zhing gcig pure DBEN by ' dug rnam g . yeng dang ' the ' dzi ​​spangs shing...).

In its conclusion the same text, he adds: "Practice carefully to practice in solitude" ( DBEN by Nyams len ' bungs )

mutsuk said:
Hi, this does not really sound like JL's phrasing, right ? Who is it from ? Or is this the result of babelfish translating ?

krodha wrote:
Yeah, could be from google translate. I know I plugged a few of his forum entries (written in French) into G.T. out of interest and ended up saving them, so perhaps it is one of those.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
How does this hardcore practice fit in with the modern world, especially solitary retreat? Just curious.

krodha wrote:
Jean-Luc Achard said recently:

I constantly see or read from people who think they practice Dzogchen while they are practicing something which has strictly nothing to do with Dzogchen, in particular those practicing in daily working life. Khenpo Jigphün used to say : "Dzogchen is retreat and retreat and retreat. Practicing outside of retreat is not Dzogchen, it is leisure or vacations." Lopön [Tenzin Namdak] used to have practically the same wording in some of his private advice.


and,

The real core of Dzogchen is not integration of the natural state into daily life (you don't get this in any text), the core is Thogel practice (on a Trekcho basis) and Thogel is only meaningful in retreats. People who still go on with their projections about Thogel in the daily life are just wasting their time... So to make things clear again, and all this without rage or cultist approach, what we are interested here are Bon and New Bon teachings in their traditional context. This does not mean that you have to live like a tibetan with yacks and eat butter at every meal. This means that you understand the necessity to both learn/study and practice and that correct practice is to be done in retreats. In daily life one can do one's ngöndro, four kinds of offerings, Yidam practice and some tsalung. The rest of the dzogchen teachings can only be performed during retreats.


and,

Longchenpa has indeed repeatedly that all these practices shall be construed as to do a retreat in solitude. For him, the practice of " the world " is a practice for beginners , who are unable to renounce the world itself. The isolation facilitates the dissipation of distraction which is the main trap into which fall those who think they can integrate their "experience" of the natural state in their daily activities.

Rise in Primordial Longchenpa said so clearly: "Preserve your samaya and commitments, remain isolated in solitude and abandon the distractions and occupations [ worldly ] (dam dang tshig sdom pa bsrung zhing gcig pure DBEN by ' dug rnam g . yeng dang ' the ' dzi ​​spangs shing...).

In its conclusion the same text, he adds: "Practice carefully to practice in solitude" ( DBEN by Nyams len ' bungs )


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
conebeckham said:
The four of us....and who went for coffee without me?

krodha wrote:
Crazywisdom and I quite a few times, you're more than welcome to join!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
I have a fantastic new thingy I'll call it "Vajrayana."  It will have four initiations, deities to visualize, mantras and yoga methods according to a text that lays out the path clearly. I'll call it a "tantra". We will inhabit a magical land called The West Coast with snow mountains, lotus lakes and beautiful dakini like women everywhere. It will be so awesome!!! Who's a joiner?

dzogchungpa said:
I'm in. Where is this "West Coast" of which you speak?

krodha wrote:
The same west coast where all three of us live... except one of us won't get coffee with the other two.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 12:43 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Just out of curiosity, do you know anything about Kamaleswar Bhattacharya?

krodha wrote:
I know I have a first edition of his Vigrahavyāvartānī translation. But all in all I don't have to know anything about Kamaleswar Bhattacharya to know that one is reaching significantly when they veer down the road of arguing for an ātman (of whatever stripe) in Buddhism.

A topic like this really coincides quite well with what Malcolm mentioned earlier today about scrutinizing information that is presented by so-and-so scholar or teacher. These individuals are of course entitled to their opinions, but at the end of the day if their views are not in harmony with buddhavacana then there is no reason to accept it as valid.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 11:52 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
A universal ātman in the context of the buddhadharma is an absurd and unfounded notion.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 21st, 2015 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas practice Ngöndro?
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
I try to convince myself to do Ngondro but whenever I do I find six reasons to remain where I am and not add anything to what I'm doing.

I wish to do prostrations
Then remember that visualizing Buddhas
And doing prostrations are pointless
Since everywhere I go I see Buddhas and Bodhisattvas
In a pure land helping me to integrate my enlightened awareness with all phenomena.

I wish to cultivate Bodhicitta
Then remember that its pointless
Because the ultimate nature of reality itself is completely selfless and without contrivance
And by doing nothing but remaining in that, ultimate benefit is brought to all
And compassionate activity is natural, automatic, spontaneous and as perfect as it could be
So no amount of imagining or cultivating can add anything to it
Since the movementmovement of body, speech and mind becomes the expression of ultimate Bodhicitta.

I wish to purify with Vajrasattva
Then remember that my enlightened nature is Vajrasattva already
Since the nature of mind is already pure and all phenomena are already included in that nature
There is nothing to purify, nobody who Could do the purification
And even if there was whatever might be purified is pure from the beginning
So such an activity leads nowhere.

I wish to offer the mandala of the whole universe
Then remember that visualizing all things as being given to the Buddhas of the ten directions is pointless
Because throughout the ten directions all things whatsoever are already included in the Buddha Nature
Therefore there is nothing new I could offer since all things are already offered.

I wish to do Guru Yoga in order to realize my minds nature
Then see that its a waste of effort
My enlightened nature is already identical with the enlightened nature of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of all times
Furthermore since there is no difference between meditation and post meditation
There is no new state to achieve or create and no transition between those experiences
And finally since the four empowerments simply bring to fruition this very realization itself
There is no need to take more empowerments in order to attain whats already inherently and naturally present.

I wish to perform powa to go to Amithabhas pure land
Then see there is nowhere to go
Because the transitional state between living and dying is just one of many transitional states or bardos
Which amounts to nothing more than the modification of the array of inconceivable phenomena
Arising as empty appearances to ones own enlightened nature
Since that nature is unchanging and all pervasive
All things are already a pure land so there is nowhere else to go
in order to attain such a perception or state.

Since Buddha Nature is timeless
There is no time in which to start Ngondro
Since the three times are without self nature
There is no way to count even 1 of anything
Since beginnings and ends are conceptual designations
All concepts related to starting or finishing are delusion
Since all phenomena whatsoever are included in Buddha Nature
Even signs of accomplishment are empty displays

Since things are like this
Doing one prostration Ive done an infinite number
Cultivating one moment of Bodhicitta supreme benefit is brought to all
Saying simply "Hum" I am Vajrasattva himself
All things being encompassed in the ultimate nature
Everything is automatically offered as the supreme mandala
And doing a single moment of Guru Yoga I am awakened from the beginning

When I tell myself that since its like this
I may as well do Ngondro because it cant hurt me
I realize that because its like this
I may as well not worry about making new habits
Since things are already perfect as they are
There is really no need to change anything

Then I tell myself that in order to bring beings onto the proper path
I should show them the gradual methods that will help them with liberation
But since those methods never create enlightened awareness itself
I feel that I would be lying to them
And showing them a path I haven't walked like a hypocrite

Then I tell myself that I should do it anyways
Lie to bring them benefit, be a hypocrite for their sake
Yet then I realize that they are lazy, tired, and have no energy
And since they are lacking even Bodhicitta, the very foundation of supreme attainment
Showing them a path that requires so much effort would discourage them from Dharma
So keeping it simple, I emphasize a positive intention and mindfulness above everything else

Finally I worry that the demon of pride has reared its head
Completely taken over my spiritual path
And totally acquired all my energies for its own use
That I am completely insane and delusional
And instead of bringing Dharma to beings
I am hurling them into the depths of Samsara
Then I remember vajra pride and the all accomplishing nature
And see that even ordinary pride is included in the ultimate nature
That even insanity and delusion are nothing but its ineffable display
So without any worries I just maintain my madness

In the end I cant find any reason to do Ngondro
Nor can I find any reason to avoid it
Without any need to do or not do
Without worrying about how or when or why I can bring benefit to beings
I just follow my Gurus instruction to remain in minds true nature
And refrain from adding anything extra onto that perfection

If this can be realized, really what use is Ngondro? If our suffering and delusions dont decrease, we need to do something, why not Ngondro? If our compassion is not increasing, we need to be worried and examine our mind and intention, and purify it in some way, so why not Ngondro? These are the only signs of success or failure in Dharma, everything else is adding onto this. Even having a vision of receiving empowerment from every Buddha and Bodhisattva in the ten directions is useless if having such an experience doesnt result in greater compassion, clarity, wisdom, and so forth. Even the appearance of miraculous objects is nothing but the manifestation of demons if we don't see it as innately inseparable from minds ultimate nature, if it becomes the basis of clinging and attachment. On the other hand if all things are viewed as a pure land, there is no need to modify anything or change any phenomena whatsoever, and good or bad experiences all arise as Samarasa and never leave our innately enlightened, naturally arising awareness. Finally sometimes Ngondro itself can be an obstacle when we grasp after it in order to simply reach a certain number, or with motivations like wanting other Sangha members respect, or respect from Gurus, where we think we are special for having done it, or that those who havent done it are inferior as practitioners. These are all wrong motivations that turn Ngondro into poison rather than medicine. Finally, if we are doing it in order to acquire higher teachings we might as well just lie to our Guru about doing it because we are already lying to ourselves in thinking that there are higher teachings to acquire, and if we had that karma we would get those teachings regardless so we need not worry or even try to modify anything, but just keep our intention towards supreme enlightenment as pure as possible. Not only is the whole path found in Ngondro up to Buddhahood itself, but the ultimate nature encompasses all things and all phenomena are the basis of its practice both in the presence and absence of a person doing Ngondro.

krodha wrote:
This is acceptable advice for advanced practitioners and/or those of high capacity... but it really isn't good advice for the average practitioner of low to moderate capacity... sentiments of this nature would be little more than nihilism in their case.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 21st, 2015 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek asunthatneversets,

I just see here in the Namkha Truldzo that instead of Thatagata garbha we use Dharmakaya which encompasses all.
This is in Bon Tradition called : Bon sku = Dharmakaya.

krodha wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha is a term used to convey latent and obscured dharmakāya in sentient beings. Just like the basis [gzhi] is one's nature that has not yet been recognized, once recognized the basis becomes the path [lam] and when all afflictive obscurations are dispelled, the path becomes the result [bras 'bu]. In the same way, the tathāgatagarbha is just our latent potential for omniscience, once we recognize tathāgatagarbha and completely uproot afflictive obscurations, then we actualize omniscient buddhahood as the result, which is dharmakāya.

So Bön has tathāgatagarbha too... it is just called "the basis" [gzhi]. The difference between tathāgatagarbha and dharmakāya can be explained in terms of the basis, path and result in Dzogchen, because these terms are describing the same process and principles, for instance Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche states:

To free the basis from what obscures it, we have to train. Right now, we are on the path and have not yet attained the result. When we are freed from obscuration, then the result - dharmakāya - appears... In fact, there is no difference whatsoever between the basis and result. In the state of the basis the enlightened qualities are not acknowledged, but they are manifest at the time of the result. These are not new qualities that suddenly appear, but are like the qualities of a flower that are inherent in the seed. Within the seed are the characteristics of the flower itself. The seed holds the potential for the flower's color, smell, bud and leaves. However, can we say that the seed is the result of the flower? No, we cannot, because the flower has not fully bloomed. Like this analogy, the qualities of the result are contained in the state of the basis; yet, they are not evident or manifest. That is the difference between the basis and the result. At the time of the path, if we do not apply effort, the result will not appear.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 19th, 2015 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Thanks for your replies. There is no self or somebody who thinks in Dzogchen "meditation".

krodha wrote:
Right, because Dzogchen meditation proper is resting in a direct, experiential knowledge of dharmatā. And that means that the non-arising of the mind (that the so-called "self" is subsequently imputed onto) is directly cognized.

However in truth there's never been a "self" at any time, all that is ever occurring in this dance between ignorance and wisdom is the arising or cessation of afflictive causes and conditions. A "self" is something secondary that is imputed onto these afflictive causes and conditions after the fact, but the so-called self is never real, and never truly arises or ceases. This is why Samantabhadra clarifies that in Dzogpachenpo, there is only ever one basis, two paths and two results - and this is because Dzogchen is only concerned with the recognition and non-recognition of a certain principle (the basis), and the respective results that ensue from said recognition or non-recognition.

If we fail to recognize dharmatā we become caught up in ignorance [ma rig pa], and through exteriorizing and grasping at our own appearances [rang snang] we then reify them as objective phenomena. With the arising of what is misperceived as apparently objective, a subjective mind appears to form (because the act of grasping implies objects that are "grasped" and a subjective "grasper"). In this sense it is merely the presence of ignorance that acts as a cause for the arising of a subjective point of reference we call "mind" [sems] that is mistaken as a substantial entity. The so-called "self" is then simply imputed onto that seemingly subjective point of reference that is maintained by the continual habit of grasping.

And so when we cut through that ignorance and recognize the nature of (said) mind [sems nyid], the ignorance which previously acted as a catalyst for the arising of the entire charade, collapses... removing the misconception (and mistaken perception) of a substantial entity with it, thus removing the compelling feeling of being a "self". No 'self' is actually ever removed though, all that is undone is the ignorance that mistook "clarity" i.e. cognizance, as being a substantial reference point i.e., an abiding background substratum. Hence; the nature of mind's definition as non-dual clarity and emptiness.

Yet even that being the case; we would still say that kalden yungdrung recognizes the nature of his mind and "kalden yungdrung" is therefore a useful nominal title. So a conventional self is still accepted.

kalden yungdrung said:
This self is easily scrutinized because it is illusion.

krodha wrote:
Sure it is easily scrutinized, but actually experientially cognizing its emptiness, or its nature is a different story.

kalden yungdrung said:
In the NS there is no self but only self awareness which is causeless.

krodha wrote:
There is rig pa - which is expressed as wisdom [ye shes] when it directly knows the natural state [gnas lugs], but your rigpa is not mine and vice versa. And in that way we still conventionally impute a "self" onto those processes, even if said self is ultimately unreal.

kalden yungdrung said:
But this self awareness is connected to the self emanating visions which are not visible like a movie for everybody

krodha wrote:
Right, those visions are visible to those who have become acquainted with one of the practices that work with the subtle expressions of lhun grub.

kalden yungdrung said:
like is seen by so many different eyes on the "same" way.

krodha wrote:
Right, different people see the same type of display because as humans endowed with a mind, our minds - though different - all function the same in a fundamental sense.

kalden yungdrung said:
This does mean the NS is different experienced because the Sugata-garbha is different?

krodha wrote:
The sugatagarbha is the same from person to person, like the nature of heat is the same from fire to fire, but the heat of one fire is not the heat of another fire, and the sugatagarbha of one individual is not the sugatagarbha of another individual.

And as I"m sure you know because our teachers have said, we will have different experiences related to our respective natures because we have slightly different constitutions in our body, speech and mind. For instance, we may have different elements that are more dominant in our respective conditions that will affect our experience in many ways, even in the visionary sense pertaining to what we cognize through the aforementioned practices that work with lhun grub.

kalden yungdrung said:
The Tathagata-garbha is endless encompassing this all?

krodha wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha becomes sugatagarbha in Vajrayāna and Dzogchen, it is essentially the same principle but sugatagarbha is a bit more nuanced. According to Malcolm; (in the context of Dzogchen) the sugatagarbha is the rgyu thig le which is synonymous with the anahata bindu or mi shigs thig le in the heart, it is composed of consciousness, the five elemental vāyus and the material from one's father and mother and is the basis of the visions.

kalden yungdrung said:
Maybe i could make use of macro and micro cosmos ? Only as an understanding for Sugata garbha and Tathagata garbha? Only meant here as example.

krodha wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha and sugatagarbha are synonymous I believe (someone correct me if I'm mistaken), the principle of tathāgatagarbha in sutra texts is just elaborated upon and re-named "sugatagarbha" in the context of tantra.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 19th, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek A,

Thanks for your contribution to this difficult to understand topic.

Ok Ngas lugs is also the word i know for the Natural State or NS.
NS is " experienced " by a certain Mind with identity.
Visions experienced by me in the NS, are never seen by somebody else
I know there is no self identity in the NS
But if i would become a Buddha , this Buddha is not another Buddha.
So there must be a certain entity which is always the foundation of a Buddha

krodha wrote:
The "certain entity" is a conventional mind or conventional individual.

kalden yungdrung said:
Now we get Nature
Everything comes out of Nature, stays and disappears (self released / liberated) into the Nature or Emptiness which is clearness, rays, sounds.

I guess , when i am right " I " never can become Nature.
If that would be the case then Nature would be have a begin and end.

So is the experience of the NS an "individual" case based upon Tathagatagarba or Sugatagarbha or a combination?

krodha wrote:
The sugatagarbha is the basis residing in the heart of sentient beings. That 'basis' is one's nature that has not been recognized yet. If a sentient being recognizes said basis then they rest in the 'natural state'.

kalden yungdrung said:
I know there is no self based on an ego but there is a "self" which does experience the visions of the Natural State.

And that so called self entity is NOT Nature if i am right but a " part" of the Nature ?

krodha wrote:
A 'self' is conventionally delineated for the purpose of communication, but it is just a nominal inference. Which means the concept or idea of a 'self entity' can be used effectively in everyday situations, but if that 'self entity' is keenly scrutinized, it will not withstand said scrutiny (as it cannot actually be found when sought). Like Śāntarakṣita states; a convention is "something can be tacitly accepted as long as it is not critically investigated, that is characterized by arising and decay, and that has causal effectivity." And that principle applies to Dzogpachenpo as well. Both the nature and the self are conventions, but they are both useful and carry different meanings. The 'nature' is the three wisdoms as the basis of the conventional individual/mind i.e., the dharmatā of the dharmin that is the individual.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 18th, 2015 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE
Content:
tingdzin said:
"Natural state" is often used to translate the Tibetan "sems nyid", which could also be translated "mind itself" , "nature of mind", etc. "Natural state" is also sometimes used for Tibetan "rang sa" meaning "it's own place".

krodha wrote:
Actually, "sems nyid" means "nature of mind" or "mind essence" (as you mentioned), and not "natural state".

The Tibetan term that "natural state" is a translation of is "gnas lugs" which in Sanskrit is tattva or tathātva. "Natural state" isn't a very good translation of those terms but it is widely used... "gnas lugs" means something closer to "the actual way of things", or "the way things really are".

So when one is resting in a direct knowledge [rig pa] of dharmatā, meaning they are cognizing the non-arising of mind [sems nyid] or the non-arising of phenomena, that is the natural state [gnas lugs], because they are knowing the way things really are.

This also means that only first bhūmi bodhisattvas and above know the natural state proper.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 9:54 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Think of it more like a shared consciousness that is the Form component of emptiness, just as we all seemingly exist in the same multi universe.

krodha wrote:
This isn't taobums.com, you can't just make stuff up and pass it off as legitimate here.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 9:13 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
OK, what about this part: Because we are connected to all beings on the ultimate level, we can pervade them with love. They can actually receive our love.
?

krodha wrote:
I've probably done enough speculation for one day with that last post, but for the sake of the discussion I'm sure what is being pointed to here isn't too far off from what was mentioned before regarding the ultimate being unimpeded emptiness (which goes with compassion like water and wetness). What's to stop the altruistic deeds of wisdom from reaching others?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Yeah, I don't know what Ina is smoking.

krodha wrote:
For all we know Garchen Rinpoche said something like "Ultimately, the minds of all sentient beings share a single basis.", or something to that extent... which would be acceptable, like saying all fires share a single nature of heat. But it was then translated "Ultimately, there is a single ground within which all beings are one."


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
As Garchen Rinpoche said: Ultimately, there is a single ground within which all beings are one. Because we are connected to all beings on the ultimate level, we can pervade them with love. They can actually receive our love.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

krodha wrote:
You mean Garchen Rinpoche's translator said:


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
That was the nature of the question, the relative connection "framework". Why I have recently posted the question (multiple times) about the computer network analogy. Malcolm is the only one who has really voted. Stating that in Buddhadarma there is no mind to mind connection, that the mind is limited to the physical body.

I was asking if everyone else agreed with that because as I have stated many other traditions have such capability/connection framework.

krodha wrote:
Study the two-truths, it would resolve the seeming contradictions and inconsistencies you feel you're encountering.

Right now you're struggling with your attempts to reconcile these issues through a neo-nondual type approach where you're forced to posit some sort of universal substratum, and that view is refuted by the buddhadharma, for good reason.

If you simply made an effort to comprehend how conventional designations and relative cognitions relate to ultimate truth (i.e., their emptiness), then you'd undoubtably resolve these issues you are struggling with.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
I know approximately 20 people with the capability at various levels. We used to conduct experiments at what one might call various frequencies of mind. The practioner traditions lineages included Daoism, Sufi, Mystical Christianity and I know Kashmir Shaivism also has the capability. In particular, one Daoist master I know is so clear at the human mind level visual transmissions that he actually teaches some of his advanced students that way. I have spent time with two of his students, one in Boston and one in London. But most traditions limit the connection to the guru/student bond.

krodha wrote:
Still, none of this phenomena entails one individual's mind directly affecting another individual's mind, nor does it entail minds overlapping or entering one another.

Jeff said:
I had assumed it was also part of the guru aspect in Dzogchen. I take it then that there is no concept of a guru bond either? That even advanced practioners are not capable of directly sharing presence (visited) by their guru either consciously in visions or in dreams?

krodha wrote:
Even individuals in the traditions you cited above are not capable of "directly sharing presence", sure one's guru can visit them in the dream state, but this does not involve what you are suggesting it does. Minds are not fusing and entering each other.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 8:58 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
This is both surprising and disappointing that such is not known in the Buddhist tradition.

krodha wrote:
Pray tell in what tradition is such a thing allegedly known? To be frank it sounds like something straight out of the new age circles.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
And thank you for finally agreeing that Buddhas and bodhisattvas can access and know the minds of others. Now we just need to just get the rest of the group to agree to such a concept.

Additionally, understand how that knowing is really the same as being with or "in" the local mind stream of the sentient being. With such "focus" of a high level being creating the void effect I described earlier.

krodha wrote:
Curious why you seem to be so enamored with this whole mind reading/interaction business?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 1:55 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
My argument is really quite straightforward.

Assume in the simpliest of case that B arise from A.  The process of B arising from A is dependent origination.

krodha wrote:
No, that is not dependent origination. Dependent origination is a conventional view that is applied in order to reveal the non-arising [anutpāda] of allegedly conditioned existents. It accomplishes this by demonstrating that A cannot be found apart from the conditions that allegedly define and/or sustain A. The same goes for B. If you were to parse this on a way that addresses the non-arising of A and B through their alleged relationship, one would seek to recognize that A is a mere implication of B, and B a mere implication of A. Thus neither A nor B can be found to begin with, that inability to find them is their emptiness.

But analyzing them in tandem is really unnecessary, one can simply inquire into both A and B separately and arrive at the same insight, since neither have actually arisen at any point in time. The perception of their alleged "existence" in any form is avidyā. Uproot avidyā and destroy the invalid cognition that mistakenly apperceives A and/or B as valid.

You've struggled with these notions for years though so I doubt this explanation will hit home.

Sherab said:
Because of B arising from A, the existence of B is a dependent existence.

krodha wrote:
Dependent existence is when two existents exist interdependently... which is why Nagarjuna states that dependent existence [parabhāva] is simply a guise for inherent existence [svabhāva].


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 3:04 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Dependent existence [parabhāva] is not dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].

Sherab said:
An apple is not the same as fruit but an apple is a fruit.

krodha wrote:
This example does not apply to the parabhāva/pratītyasamutpāda difference, at all.

Sherab said:
Dependent origination is not the same as emptiness

krodha wrote:
Actually it is.

Sherab said:
but dependent origination is an emptiness.

krodha wrote:
Is an emptiness?

Sherab said:
(I am NOT going to debate this.

krodha wrote:
Clearly, since to have a healthy debate you would first need to understand these principles.

Sherab said:
I put it here just to make a point.)

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure what point you were attempting or intending to make, but it did not come to fruition.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
Please elaborate so that I can understand your objection.

krodha wrote:
Dependent existence [parabhāva] is not dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 13th, 2015 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
Let me use a personal example: I find it very very difficult to believe that Nagarjuna wrote "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" (Skt: Dharmadhatustava ). It just does not seem like the guy that wrote "Collection of Madhyamaka Reasoning" also wrote this particular "Praise" (which was one in a collection of "Praises"). It is completely different and seemingly antithetical to his Madhyamaka writings. But that's just my own incredulity, there's nothing more to it than that. So should I now dismiss the text as an anomaly because it is so different, because my worldview does not accept the discrepancy as being by the same author?

The easy answer for me is "no". Why? Because later authors that I accept as having some level of realization (such as Karmapa III) have commented on it. Does that mean that they are able to psychically confirm that there was only one Nagarjuna and only he wrote it? No. What it means is that they, having achieved some level of advanced realization, can through their own authority validate it as authentic Dharma, as useful in the path to realization. Regardless of who wrote it*, if it becomes part of the lexicon of a tradition that actually produces realized masters it is Dharma with a capitol "D".

Of course if you think that the only person that has ever become enlightened was Shakyamuni, then that kind of validation is impossible. But if someone believes that, then why should they bother to study what Shakyamuni taught at all?

**********

*Given this scenario the assumption would be that whoever the author was was himself enlightened. Dharma comes from an enlightened mind, not a personality per se.

krodha wrote:
Off topic; but there are many who assert there were indeed two separate Nāgārjunas: (i) the Siddha Nāgārjuna and (ii) Ācārya Nāgārjuna.

Though their sentiments and expositions are not antithetical at all, not sure how you came to that conclusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 8th, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Lucid dreaming and rigpa
Content:
Saoshun said:
Ass and carrot on the stick.

krodha wrote:
If you want to insist that dualistic mind is primordial wisdom then be my guest, it makes no difference to me.

Saoshun said:
There is no beings to become awakened

krodha wrote:
From the ultimate standpoint of the highest wisdom there are no beings to awaken or be liberated, but clinging to such a view from the standpoint of the relative is nothing more than nihilism.

The fact that all things are ultimately devoid of inherency and free from extremes does not mean one is in recognition of that fact, and it certainly does not mean one has a complete knowledge of it. Even then, principles such as awakening, the basis, path and result etc., are never negated on the conventional level.

Saoshun said:
Thinking that you can remove your confusion is symptomatic of the confusion.

krodha wrote:
Confusion must be overturned through direct recognition of dharmatā, and then habitual tendencies and karmic traces must be exhausted, only then is one free of affliction.

In any case, you are either unfamiliar with Atiyoga or your view is simply lacking, but in either case your sentiments are not in line with this teaching. What you are advocating for is called allowing the view to overtake the conduct, a crippling error that if uncorrected can compromise your chances of liberation altogether.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 8th, 2015 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: Lucid dreaming and rigpa
Content:
Saoshun said:
the idea of practicing non-dual awareness is like idea of keeping ocean wet. Let go of this idea that there is something to keep, you are always in non dual awareness no matter what you doing or non doing.

krodha wrote:
In terms of Dzogpachenpo, one does not always have a knowledge of non-dual wisdom, which is something that must be initially recognized, and then familiarized with. Aspirants who are beginning on the path (and sentient beings in general) are endowed with a dualistic cognition that is burdened by affliction, that is why their noetic capacities are referred to as vijñāna [rnam shes]... only awakened beings possess non-dual jñāna [ye shes].

This is why Longchenpa states [per Malcolm]:

The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained.

Saoshun said:
It's like hearing, can you practice hearing? No. It's happens, the hearing can be only clearer if awareness will not be absorbed in the mind chit-chat which springs from false idea of "me"

krodha wrote:
You are simply describing the clarity of mind [gsal ba]... this is not the so-called "non-dual awareness" of Dzogchen, at least not until it is recognized as non-arisen and purified of afflictive obscurations.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 6th, 2015 at 11:42 AM
Title: Re: Reiki
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
What was that like?

krodha wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 12:32 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
I have always said that Great Madhyamaka is just one presentation.

krodha wrote:
"Great Madhyamaka" is a truly undefined title that has been applied to practically any and every Madhyamaka view at one time or another, as Malcolm has demonstrated more than a few times.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 12:26 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
I have nothing but respect the classical way of looking at things and encourage whoever wants to see things that way to continue. However the teachings did change over time in Tibet. Very slowly, but they did change. No point in denying it.

krodha wrote:
There is no "classical vs. contemporary" dichotomy. Dudjom Rinpoche's personal views on Madhyamaka do not constitute evidence for some sort of contemporary or undeniable renaissance in Tibetan views.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 12:09 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
krodha wrote:
Glad to see this discussion is happening yet again (for what is probably the tenth time), and smcj is still adhering to the same positions, the main few being: (i) gzhan stong is the correct dzogchen view, (ii) Dudjom Rinpoche said this and that, (iii) gzhan stong has the exclusive and true rights to the title "great Madhyamaka", (iv) so-called contemporary sources have it correct, whereas the adepts of old (were really old and thus) didn't do it as well as the contemporary lamas.

All of these points have been contested, addressed and shown to be merely one way of looking at things... they are certainly by no means the "correct™" way.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, ultimately. Still, Nāgārjuna accepts karmic ripening conventionally...

krodha wrote:
Jayarava rejects the two truths, and therefore robs himself of the ability to comprehend Nāgārjuna's reasoning (and then when Nāgārjuna's expositions no longer make sense, Jayarava places the fault with Nāgārjuna rather than himself, which is quite convenient).

https://jayarava.blogspot.com/2011/08/not-two-truths.html


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Jayarava said:
But I do adduce reasons in an earlier essay. My bad for not linking to it. I can sum that argument up for you in a few quick words. Pratītyasamutpāda says:
imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imass' uppādā idaṃ uppajjati;
imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati. (My emphasis)
None other than Nāgārjuna points out the problem with any version of karma that requires effects to ripen after the conditions have ceased:
tiṣṭhaty ā pākakālāc cet karma tan nityatām iyāt /
> niruddhaṃ cen niruddhaṃ sat kiṃ phalaṃ janayiṣyati // MMK_17.6 //
Which translates as:

"If the action remains until the time of maturation, then it would be eternal
If it ceases, being ceased, how does it produce a fruit?"

Now, Nāgārjuna has a particular solution in mind when he makes this criticism. And Indrajala has already pointed out that other Buddhist sects had their own solutions. Which goes to show that this is not something I've simply made up. It was a problem widely acknowledged in the Buddhist world and many solutions were proposed, and polemics were written criticising them all by Buddhists of different sects. Far from being a shocking modern discovery, this is a boring 2000 year old argument. Though in my view it was never settled satisfactorily.

So I'm sorry that you felt the need to go on the offensive, but you are simply mistaken. The facts are very much on my side. Does this change your mind at all?

krodha wrote:
I see you're revisiting this misconception yet again, Jayarava... you and I [krodha] were just discussing the absurdity of this conclusion (of yours) yesterday on reddit.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
inconceivable.jpg

krodha wrote:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-- Inigo Montoya


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 6th, 2015 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: in search of a ethical way to deal with spiders
Content:
krodha wrote:
I use one of those orange prescription pill bottles to capture them and release them outside.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Who said anything about an epigraph?

krodha wrote:
Oh yes, I forgot about all those other contexts and instances where Elio is tied to Ramana Maharshi...


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Why don't you ask Elio and Adriano?

krodha wrote:
Elio admitted he was off base with the Ramana Maharshi epigraph last April in Tenerife.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Frankly, it amazes me that people think view does not matter when it comes to awakening, or that awakening does not have causes and conditions.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, perhaps you can explain what you meant by https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=15030&p=209120#p209120:
Malcolm said:
The Dzogchen perspective is that a liberation based on causes and effects is incoherent.

krodha wrote:
It is imperative to separate Dzogchen and Dzogchenpa, dzogchungpa.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
When did I say nonduality implies a substantiated essence?

krodha wrote:
Here:
Still, none of this has any bearing on nonduality itself. Nonduality is beyond "this is" and "this is not," like those scriptures I quoted earlier say.

Boomerang said:
Not the Advaita concept of nonduality, but ineffable nonduality?

krodha wrote:
So you're advocating for a perrennialist view of non-duality?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 12:07 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
How is this any different than what I've been saying the whole time about nonduality being beyond words?

krodha wrote:
Well for one, you've been continually positing a reductive "non-duality" as some sort of substantiated essence... which makes everything you've been saying vastly different.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Ironically, you are the one who isn't understanding.

Boomerang said:
I'm certainly not omniscient. I can only do the best I can, motivated by love an sincerity. Up to this point you've given me no reason to believe that you understand Advaita Vedanta better than I do. Until you can do that, it doesn't matter to me if you say I don't understand the nuances of both religions.

Love.

krodha wrote:
The point of a statement like this:
The point is that in Buddhadharma, nondual consciousness is subjective and personal, not objective and universal. You can't simply cherry pick what you like.
Is to illustrate that in Vedanta, non-dual consciousness is a transpersonal, ontological principle, whereas in the buddhadharma said non-dual consciousness is a personal, epistemic insight.

Further, it is your comprehension of Buddhist tenets that is lacking. I too used to make the mistake of seeing Advaita and Buddhism as ultimately agreeing on principles such as non-duality and so on... and I too was quite certain that I had it all figured out. Eventually however I delved deeper into the meaning of the buddhadharma and discovered that the meaning of both systems is not the same at all.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
I already said that there can be no objectivity in a nondual reality, but I don't think you understood.

krodha wrote:
Ironically, you are the one who isn't understanding.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
I'm only participating in this thread so that everyone knows that it is possible to be Hindu and Buddhist, regardless of what some people may think.

krodha wrote:
It really isn't possible, and despite what you may think; your argument (that it is possible to practice both simultaneously) hasn't been very convincing since you don't appear to comprehend the subtle nuances of both views.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
I don't see any far reaching implications or controversial statements there.
How Great Madhyamaka relates to secret mantra; ground, path and result in both its causal and resultant aspects; and the ground, path and result of the "uncommon definitive order" (which I think here means Dzogchen) aren't "far reaching implications"? Geez, what more do you want?

Tough room.

krodha wrote:
How are they "far reaching implications"? And how do those alleged implications contradict the view or result championed by Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka (for example)?

The answer is: they don't.

Sure you can argue the praxis of both systems is different. But there are no "far reaching implications" apart from that, and the implications of the praxis are ultimately only pertinent to the basis and path of each system. The result is the same (buddhahood).


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
From Dudjom R.'s "Big Red Book" p.185:
It is wrong to refer to the mere emptiness, which is nothing at all, as the ultimate truth.

Thus, absolute reality is the pristine cognition of the non-dual nature of just what is. It is indicated by the words of buddha-body of reality or essential buddha-body which genuinely transcends the phenomena of consciousness. yet, also comprised within this doctrine, which is mis-represented as the philosophical system knows as the Mind Only, are: the definitive order of the three continua as taught in the way of secret mantra; the definitive order of the ground, path and result of purification ands forth which are adhered to by followers of the treater vehicle in both its causal and resultant aspects, and which include [the terminology] of deities, mantras, embodiments of indestructible reality, supreme bliss, emptiness endowed with all supreme aspects, the imperishable seminal point which is the fundamental support of the body, speech and mind; and also the uncommon definitive order of the ground, path and result.
Don't ask me to explain what all that means. You just wanted a citation for "far reaching implications". That quote seems to fit the bill.

krodha wrote:
I don't see any far reaching implications or controversial statements there.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
krodha wrote:
In the buddhadharma, "non-dual" can mean either (i) a freedom from the extremes of existence and non-existence, and/or (ii) dharmin and dharmatā are neither the same nor different. Both (i) and (ii) being essentially synonymous.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
That is one version. There are quite a few variations with far ranging implications.

krodha wrote:
Can you cite an example of another version with "far ranging implications"? Because I haven't seen any... unless you're referring to the varying misinterpretations out there which err into ātmavādin waters.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
So these sweeping generalizations you are making are a bit reckless.
All generalizations are generalizations, not absolute rules.

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure what that means.

smcj said:
I can't even say that all Gelugpas hold Nagarjuna to be definitive anymore whereas I once could do so. I've seen some HHDL quotes recently that are very sympathetic to some forms of Shentong. That is remarkable!

krodha wrote:
I don't quite understand the fixation on gzhan stong, especially since it only states that Buddha qualities are innate to wisdom... which is something so-called traditional Madhyamaka promotes as well. It's really a false dichotomy... there's just more room for eternalist wriggle room with gzhan stong if it is misinterpreted.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
Is Buddhist nonduality something that humans are able to perfectly describe through language? Is Advaita nonduality something that humans can perfectly describe through language?

krodha wrote:
That argument is a slippery slope being that words are going to ultimately fail to capture the direct experience of any and everything... the taste of sugar for example. That being said, there are accurate and inaccurate descriptions of such things, for instance; sugar is not sour, it is sweet. The same goes for descriptions of "non-dual" in Buddhism and Vedanta.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
I have understood the significance of Madhyamaka, but as per the Kagyu and Nyingma schools I see it as provisional, and the Great Madhyamaka/Shentong as definitive.

krodha wrote:
Kagyu and Nyingma do not collectively uphold gzhan stong as definitive over Madhyamaka proper. The majority of key Nyingma adepts actually prefer Prasanga Madhyamaka over gzhan stong... and not all Kagyus consider gzhan stong to be definitive, for instance my [Drikung] Kagyu lama states outright that Nāgārjuna's view is definitive. So these sweeping generalizations you are making are a bit reckless.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 25th, 2015 at 3:59 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
However I also see a pronounced bias towards a classical interpretation in your position.

krodha wrote:
I know this is really between Malcolm and you, but just curious; "classical" as opposed to what? You've mentioned this alleged "classical interpretation versus a more contemporary interpretation" issue before but (to my knowledge) the evidence for this dichotomy has never reared its head.

smcj said:
What I do not accept is you dismissal of major authorities, generally from the late 19th-20th century Tibet, that do not agree with you.

krodha wrote:
I know Malcolm can defend himself, but from an outside perspective: I've never seen this alleged "dismissing" occur. Nor have I seen any evidence of major authorities disagreeing with what Malcolm has clarified or pointed out in these instances. Not to throw you to the wolves, but what I have seen is a continual theme of misinterpretation on your part... and I think the blowback and objections that have arisen in response to your misinterpretations may have been wrongly transposed onto the aforementioned 'major authorities' instead of being isolated to where they rightly belong: which is between you and Malcolm... and not Malcolm and these 'major authorities'.

smcj said:
Even with all of your remarkable accomplishments, credentials, and pure motivations you simply do not have the credibility to dismiss the teachings of major Shentongpas as something other than legitimate Dharma.

krodha wrote:
Again, has this occurred?

smcj said:
I understand you're trying to hold the line with classical orthodoxy.

krodha wrote:
Again, "classical orthodoxy" as opposed to what? I don't see any evidence of this dichotomy and/or biases towards an orthodox or contemporary interpretation. If I were to propose a dichotomy it would simply be (i) correct interpretation, vs. (ii) misinterpretation.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: emptiness wisdom, conceptual understanding, stepping sto
Content:
smcj said:
The Prajnaparamitat Sutras are about self-emptiness, so yes.

krodha wrote:
No, the prajñāpāramitā sūtras simply discuss emptiness properly and in general... both self and other. The whole 'self-empty' versus 'other empty' thing is nothing more than a gzhan stong straw man - and gzhan stong is possibly a useful view for some but it has nothing new to offer that isn't covered in the prajñāpāramitā etc.

smcj said:
The paradigm I'm advocating for places Nagarjna (Prajnaparamita, Prasangika Madhyamaka, self-emptiness, 2nd Turning of the Wheel, Tsongkhapa/Chandrakirti, etc.) as provisional teachings only. They are not definitive or final. This is the position of Kongtrul R. and Dudjom R. However both K.R. & D.R. say that the 2nd Turning needs to precede 3rd Turning teachings, that is why I called them a stepping stone.

krodha wrote:
If anything it's the other way around, but in general the entire 'second turning', 'third turning' scheme is doctrinally unfounded and extraneous in general. Really all it has become in the west is a platform for baseless oneupmanship that primarily involves eternalists and ātmavādins who don't understand the teachings.

I can understand the differentiation between Vajrayāna and the Mahāyāna of Nāgārjuna etc., in terms of praxis, but to state that traditional Madhyamaka is a provisional "stepping stone" in relation to the so-called "third turning" teachings of the tathāgatagarbha sūtras, Yogācāra, gzhan stong etc. doesn't make much sense since the view of traditional Madhyamaka surpasses the view of Yogācāra and gzhan stong (and tathāgatagarbha is simply a nice view that does not render anything inferior - unless it is being misinterpreted).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 16th, 2015 at 4:04 PM
Title: Re: Spirits - are these considered to be formless beings?
Content:
prsvrnc said:
How are spirits classified in Tibetan Buddhism?

krodha wrote:
What we usually think of as "spirits" in the west are called bhutas in India... I'm not sure what the Tibetan translation of that term would be.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 15th, 2015 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Vijnana vs. Rigpa
Content:
White Lotus said:
if rigpa is the natural state then it is vijnana

krodha wrote:
The so-called "natural state" is (an attempt at) an English translation for the Tibetan term gnas lugs [skt. tattva, tathātva], which is not equivalent to vijñāna but is rather quite the opposite since it entails a direct experiential knowledge [rig pa] of jñāna [tib. ye shes].

White Lotus said:
if rigpa is emptiness then it is not vijnana

krodha wrote:
Rig pa is also not emptiness, although it can be a (direct, experiential) knowledge of emptiness - and is so, in its definitive expressions.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Vijnana vs. Rigpa
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Everything is rigpa (Dharmakaya), we are just unaware of the fact.

krodha wrote:
Appearances are the rtsal of rig pa, but rtsal is not always wisdom. Dharmakāya is the result and occurs at the level of the individual (the mind completely purified of affliction and fully omniscient)... because of that, saying 'everything is dharmakāya' is held to be incorrect;
Designating appearances as the dharmakāya obscures me,
designating whatever appears as mind obscures me,
designating wisdom as mind obscures me.
- Samantabhadra-citta-ādarśa


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Vijnana vs. Rigpa
Content:
krodha wrote:
Rigpa in its coarsest and most afflicted expression is precisely the vijñāna skandha.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 7th, 2015 at 5:06 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land Contradicts Buddha Teachings....
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
instead the unconditioned Dharmakaya from which the Pure Land is supported is the 4 virtues of Nirvana 'True Self, Bliss, Permanence, and purity.'

krodha wrote:
For thr record, the sūtras themselves never use the term "true self" in the context of the four virtues, you simply took the liberty of embellishing and adding that yourself in order to suit your ātmavādin agenda. The term 'self' is found in that context, but never "True Self" (with the unnecessary capitalizations and so on).


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 10:22 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
taking refuge in our real nature, although since theres nowhere else to go

krodha wrote:
There is elsewhere to go if you are ignorant of said nature.

gad rgyangs said:
theres really nothing you need to take refuge from.

krodha wrote:
That is true from the ultimate standpoint while yogins dwell directly in wisdom... but the vast majority are unable to rest in that wisdom at all times (presupposing they even know that wisdom to begin with), therefore it is crucial that practitioners take refuge, upholding view and conduct to the best of their ability. Denying relative appearances (and principles like refuge) on the path is nihilism.
Some say: 'Cause and effect, compassion and merits are the dharma for ordinary people, and it will not lead to enlightenment. O great yogis! You should meditate upon the ultimate meaning, effortless as space.' These kinds of statements are the views of the utmost nihilism, they have entered the path of the most inferior. It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause.
- Longchenpa | rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the quote is perfectly clear unless you can't read.

krodha wrote:
For the sake of the discussion, what do you feel are the core and salient issues that remain unaddressed from Rinpoche's quote?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 1:03 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Kasina said:
What (besides the obvious fact that the Buddha found the path and Nirvana on his own) are the differences between the Buddha and regular Arahants in Mahayana?

krodha wrote:
Mahāyāna states that arhats realize the emptiness of personal identity [pudgalaśūnyatā], but not emptiness of so-called external phenomena [dharmaśūnyatā].

It is also said that an arhat attains either (i) nirvāṇa with residue [sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa] or (ii) nirvāṇa without residue [nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa] however the nirvāṇa of Mahāyāna is called non-abiding nirvāṇa [apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa], which is (by the standards of Mahāyāna) a superior liberation to that of an arhat's (liberation).


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 2:39 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
For example, is Heidegger's seinsfrage a step towards Dzogchen in a western tradition? Are some of Meister Eckhart's late sermons expressing what amounts to a Dzogchen view? I don't think these are easy "yes" or "no" questions (although I expect an avalanche of "no"s any minute...

krodha wrote:
Avalanche of no's.

In general though, those who struggle with tradition tend to be very literal-minded due to having a intense poverty in any ability to comprehend (i) conventional devices, (ii) skillful means, and (iii) provisional, supplementary support structures.

For example; there are some out there who push the idea of a "radical Dzogchen" that defies tradition etc., it is such a ridiculous notion. One's nature is always one's nature, originally pure and naturally perfected; the relative structures that aid the aspirant in realizing that nature are simply provisional methods. There's absolutely no reason to swat them away in the name of a "more pure" relative structure... whatever new approach one would abandon the structures of old for would be nothing more than another relative structure - only the newfound structures would not have the time-tested and proven efficacy of refined systems and unbroken lineages.

One's nature is innately pure and free of relative structures, and when one has a direct, experiential knowledge of that nature its primordial purity is overtly evident... this means that fixating on rejecting relative structures because one's nature is originally pure is nothing more than the mind accepting and rejecting. One should be able to use traditions and structured systems as useful tools that can be implemented and set down when the job is done.

Not directing this at anyone here, just making a broad observation; but worrying about traditions, structures and systems is simply the relative mind clinging to an idea of original purity - because authentic wisdom is originally pure by nature and needn't accept or reject. The ultimate view is simply free (innately), and no tradition, structure or system can bind it... but traditions, structures and systems surely aid one in realizing that nature. It all comes back to upāya.

Lashing out at tradition, structure and system is akin to cutting off leaves and branches - rather than severing the issue at the root (which is avidyā). Traditions, structures and systems do not bind, only ignorance binds. So why not use the traditions, structures and systems to one's benefit, relate to them skillfully, sever delusion, and realize that it has all been originally pure and naturally perfected since time without beginning?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 4th, 2014 at 11:46 AM
Title: Re: Hello from San Jose, California
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also Reddit /r/Buddhism moderator extraordinaire:


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 3:57 PM
Title: Re: Request for something super specific
Content:
Paul said:
Okay, I'll look. BTW I think a full exposition of this subject is going to be more common in Mahamudra texts as the techniques of Mahamudra are more gradual and based on meditative analysis when introducing the view.

krodha wrote:
It is also part of khorde rushan practice in Dzogchen, and a full exposition can be found in that context as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
It is my impression/suspicion that things did change over time. Who, why and when I have no idea, but the modern period seems to be different than the classical period. I'm ok with that.

krodha wrote:
You mentioned this the other day, can't say I agree. I don't see it.

smcj said:
If enlightened teachers teach it,

krodha wrote:
That's a big "if".

smcj said:
and students following it become enlightened, then what's the purpose of criticizing?

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure that students are following some sort of renaissance as you suggest, in terms of Vajrayāna they are simply receiving the blessings of the lineage and following their teacher's instruction. Whether that involves a divergent modernization / reinterpretation of the classical view I highly doubt.

smcj said:
Once you get to the "other shore" it's time to get out of the dharma boat anyway.

krodha wrote:
Well yes but those firmly planted on the allegorical "other shore" are quite rare, and even then the fact that they are beyond the need for the instructions, view and conduct that accompany the basis and path does not mean they throw those principles to the wind.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
krodha wrote:
*double post


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Lotus_Bitch said:
I believe the Nyingmapas follow a standardized interpretation following that of Rongzom, Longchenpa, and Mipham in that order.

krodha wrote:
The latter two openly stating that they are primarily thal 'gyur pas (i.e., consider Prasangika to be a definitive view) Rongzom may as well. To be fair Longchenpa states it is his opinion that the tathāgatagarbha sūtras are definitive sūtras, but at the same time is able to state that Prasanga is the definitive view - which makes for a nice balance that is sure to avoid extremes.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The main elements of the so-called third turning that are applicable in Atiyoga are the eight consciousness model and the tathāgatagarbha, apart from that there really isn't anything that stands out as notably worthy of substantiating an argument for the supremacy of the 'third turning'. And the fact that Atiyoga only borrows the eight consciousnesses and gives its interpretation of sugatagarbha really shows that an exclusive association of Dzogpachenpo with the 'third turning' is unwarranted.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 1:58 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
This gets into the different interpretations of Nagarjuna between Chandrakirti and Tsongkhapa. I was raised on Tsongkhapa, so my version of dependent arising has a provisional existence. And if I could find my book on "The 3 Principle Aspects of the Path" by Tsongkhapa I could give a quote about emptiness and interdependent arising being the same thing. But then again that's Tsongkhapa, who isn't universally well regarded here, and I can't find the book anyway. So here's a quote lifted from a post by Malcolm on p.3 of this thread:
Āryāṣṭadaśasahasrika-prajñāpāramitā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

Dependent origination should be known as emptiness.

krodha wrote:
I never said dependent origination and emptiness were antonymous, and Nāgārjuna pointed out that dependent origination and emptiness are clearly one and the same far before Tsongkhapa's reiteration.

smcj said:
Who ever said that?

krodha wrote:
It is the natural consequence of the three natures and has been pointed out numerous times here.

smcj said:
Madhyamaka has jurisdiction over the phenomenal universe. Shentong jurisdiction is that which cannot be taken as a subject by consciousness, the unborn, etc.

krodha wrote:
That is a patent fallacy. Gzhan stong simply says the three kāyas are innate, however this is the implication of traditional Madhyamaka as well. When it comes down to it, gzhan stong really does not offer anything that cannot be found in traditional Madhyamaka.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 1:09 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
As for Nagarjuna, I find that his arguments can end up leading people (e.g. Garfield) to argue that Nagarjuna was basically saying that the ultimate of everything is dependent origination. In other words, there is nothing that is unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated. This directly contradicts Udana 8.3 and fatally impacts the soteriology of Buddhism. I doubt that this was the conclusion intended by Nagarjuna.
Actually my current understanding Is that is exactly what Nagarjuna meant. When Gelugpas talk about their "non-affirming negation" they are specifically not affirming that there is anything more to it. You have to leave Madhyamaka and enter Yogacara or Shentong to get any kind of "nothing-yet-more-than-nothing".

krodha wrote:
Nāgārjuna never says "the ultimate of everything is dependent origination", Madhyamaka simply says that so-called conditioned dharmas originate dependently and therefore do not actually originate at all, hence they are unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated etc. This is the heart of the soteriology of Buddhism.

So no, what you are asserting is not what Nāgārjuna meant. And one can actually argue that Yogācāra is an inferior view to Madhyamaka since it ends up a realist view. Gzhan stong is nothing more than a post-meditative interpretation and does not contradict Madhyamaka if properly understood.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
LastLegend said:
If I understand you correctly, there are two separate 'things.' That is emptiness of phenomena and emptiness of emptiness ( which is this empty mind basically).

Sherab said:
No, you did not understand me correctly.  I said that dependent arising can only be a subset of emptiness if the liberation from samsara as taught by the Buddha is to make any sense.

Therefore, the emptiness of phenomena is a member of the emptiness set.  The emptiness of the emptiness of phenomena, i.e., the emptiness of dependent arising itself is also a member of the emptiness set.  Emptiness of emptiness when applied to the emptiness set implies a nihilistic view.

To understand what I said, you have to understand set theory.

krodha wrote:
There is no "set theory" involved with dependent origination, emptiness, etc., this is a wrong view.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 28th, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Before teaching to somebody...
Content:
smcj said:
But I do not see anything wrong with respectfully pointing out that he is speaking from a specific perspective (and with a pronounced conservative agenda) that is not universally shared in modern (19th/20th centuries) times.

krodha wrote:
Often it seems to be more-so the case that so-called 'unorthodox' views (that contrast so-called 'orthodox' views) are simply misinterpretations. Not to mention that many aspects of these systems are still coming to light, which means the common western understanding is in a provisional state of constant refinement and evolution. The common topic regarding the conflation of Atiyoga with Hindu systems like Vedanta is a perfect example of this; certain translational choices based on unrefined or flowering comprehension, along with a limited selection of English translations has bred flawed trends in understanding.

smcj said:
I am comfortable with the presentations of Dudjom R. and Kongtrul R. that Malcolm disapproves of.

krodha wrote:
I've never seen Malcolm disapprove of Dudjom Rinpoche's or Jamgon Kongtrul's presentations, any disapproval or critique I've witnessed has been directed towards misunderstandings of their teachings rather than the teachings themselves.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
odysseus said:
I don´t agree totally. They´re not the direct opposite of the 5 heaps (how is that possible to have an opposite anyway). Perhaps some people mean they are an antidote, but they don´t exactly hang together with them. Dhyani Buddhas don´t represent anything special about the skandhas, they´re saints representing 5 different qualities of enlightenment.

krodha wrote:
The five skandhas in their natural expression are the five wisdoms i.e. the five dhyani buddhas.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 10:58 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
odysseus said:
I like this. Other than that, the rest of your talking is gibberish. lol

krodha wrote:
Authentic frontier gibberish, to be exact.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 10:24 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
From "On The Nature Of Samantabhadra: A Conversation with Chögyal Namkhai Norbu": Question: Is the state of Adibuddha, or Kunjed Gyalpo, something universal, present in all beings?
Answer: The state of Kunjed Gyalpo is knowledge, and in knowledge there is not even the concept of "one and two," otherwise we have already entered into dualism. Also the concept of "individual" presupposes dualistic vision. But Samantabhadra is beyond all this, isn't he?

krodha wrote:
Right, because Samantabhadra is dharmakāya i.e. emptiness free from extremes. The adibuddha is universal in the sense that all sentient beings endowed with a mind have a mind-nature (e.g., all fires have heat), but not 'universal' in the sense that said nature is a single, transpersonal essence pervading everything (e.g., every fire shares the exact same heat). That fire-heat example (mentioned by Malcolm directly above) is also why there isn't a concept of one or two.

From the point of view of Samantabhadra there is no 'individual' but then again there isn't anything findable that accords with the extremes of existence or non-existence from that standpoint. This does not contradict conventional distinctions, nor does it suggest a transpersonal, single nature of mind pervading everything.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
krodha wrote:
Andrew108?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
That's simply incorrect when discussing Shankaradvaita. Jiva and Ishvara are the appearance of Brahman under the veil of maya. Jiva is a confused appearance only, not a subset of anything. Paramatman is jiva freed from confusion.

krodha wrote:
This still means that an existent, unconditioned purusha is being realized once confusion is dispelled.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
However, the terms point to the same basis.

krodha wrote:
Definitely not.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Instant Mindfulness
Content:
krodha wrote:
I side with this Tibetan aphorism:

"The marmot ostensibly cultivating meditative stabilization is actually hibernating."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
rachmiel said:
Dependent origination is one of the key things I've learned from Buddhism. It helped me see the grand web of intercausality and connection we live in.

krodha wrote:
Although you do realize that the "neti-neti" in your signature is a Hindu method used to point to something that (allegedly) defies dependent origination?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
krodha wrote:
Speaking of carrots,


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 1:27 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
lorem said:
You can't just get direct introduction then remain in rig pa.

krodha wrote:
Right, I don't think anyone suggested that. Only cig car bas are capable of non-regressive buddhahood upon receiving introduction. Most of us are ('bras bu) thod rgal bas or ('bras bu) rim gyis pas which means we traverse the path swiftly or slowly depending on our respective capacities.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 12:38 PM
Title: Re: can buddhist smoke anerican spirit organic ciggeretes
Content:
krodha wrote:
Smoke inhalation pollutes and corrupts your channels, it is better to avoid smoking if one is serious about practice.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
lorem said:
Yeah "ground of being" actually does sound Christian or Hindu. "foundation" or "base" is better, imo.

krodha wrote:
It is termed the 'basis' because the species of epistemic insight it denotes serves as the foundation for the path.

Hence; basis [gzhi], path [lam], result ['bras bu].

That is why "ground of being" really makes no sense; it suggests some type of abiding, ontological foundation for existent phenomena. Whereas the basis [gzhi] is simply a conventional term used to convey that one's nature has not been recognized.

Once the basis is recognized it is no longer the 'basis' but instead becomes the 'path' [lam] because the direct, experiential knowledge [rig pa] of that wisdom [ye shes] (the term 'basis' is meant to denote) is what the practitioner familiarizes with and gains confidence in. Then, continuing in the fully realized and unobscured, direct knowledge of that wisdom is the result ['bras bu].


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 2:05 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
It is neither revolutionary of heretical, except to Gelugpas and some Sakyapas.

krodha wrote:
What is "it"? Gzhan stong? Gzhan stong isn't the issue, it is simply a post-meditative view; useful in certain cases, but never indicative of the implications you appear to believe gzhan stong carries; e.g. monism, transpersonal ontological realities, orthodox contradiction, etc.

Also, Gelugpas and "some Sakyapas" are not the only ones who do not adhere to gzhan stong. Many Kagyus and Nyingmapas do not consider gzhan stong to be definitive. Bönpo lamas such as Lopon Tenzin Namdak and the late Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen disagree with gzhan stong as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 1:13 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
I guess you haven't read the whole thread, or many of my posts for that matter. Back to one of my favorites from Dudjom R.

krodha wrote:
I've been following it from the beginning, hence why you see my posts early on in the thread. Your quotes may serve to substantiate your own interpretations in your own eyes, however I respectfully disagree that your interpretation is sound, and therefore do not find that said quotes confirm or substantiate the views you believe they do. To each their own.

smcj said:
This is a monistic presentation of reality.

krodha wrote:
You see literal descriptions of a monistic reality, I see eloquent literary devices.

smcj said:
So basically--I hate to be a jerk about this--but you're wrong.

krodha wrote:
Yes you've made it quite apparent that you disagree with the opinions of a few people on this matter, and that is alright.

smcj said:
In some quarters this is heresy to the hilt. Q.E.D.

krodha wrote:
You seem gleefully hellbent on assuring yourself that you are shedding light on a heretical and revolutionary view found nestled right in the heart of the Nyingma. Why I'm not sure, but I'm not seeing it.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 12:44 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
I'm going to say that by the late 19th century Nyingma and Kagyu tenets would have been dismissed as heresy at Nalanda circa 900 A.D. The slippery slope towards "heresy" happened in Tibet pre-invasion, not here, and not by me. Although I must admit it doesn't bother me in the least.

krodha wrote:
The point is that there is no "heresy" because no one is advocating for whatever it is you believe they are. At no point in time has any Nyingma lama sponsored any view that resembles anything remotely close to a transpersonal, monist, ontological, ātmavāda.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
But that doesn't mean that contemporary Nyingma orthodoxy (as per the Big Red Book) doesn't embrace it.

krodha wrote:
It's your position that the modern Nyingma view dispenses with its entire centuries-old tenet system and embraces heterodox ātmavāda, all because Dudjom Rinpoche exhibited a predilection for modernized gzhan stong ala Kongtrul?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
krodha wrote:
*double post


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
The pivotal point here is what is meant by "limitless mind beyond extremes". Malcolm says that it is each individual's mind. I say that our minds are not real, and that Ultimate Reality is transpersonal and fecund.

krodha wrote:
So what then differentiates your view from Advaita Vedanta or Samkhya yoga?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 8:40 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
Yes, and Dujom R. is on record as saying that for discussing emptiness from an experiential perspective Great Madhyamaka is best.

krodha wrote:
When it comes down to it gzhan stong (what you are referring to as 'great madhyamaka') is simply a post-meditative view advocating for the validity of buddha-qualities, and says buddhahood is not denied qualities which are innate to it. Prasangika doesn't say anything different (which is why gzhan stong contrasting so-called rang stong i.e. traditional Madhyamaka, doesn't really make sense). Atiyoga doesn't deny buddha-qualities either. Prajñāpāramitā doesn't deny buddha-qualities. Mahāmudrā doesn't deny buddha-qualities. The buddhadharma in general doesn't deny buddha-qualities, so why the fixation on gzhan stong is necessary I'm not sure.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
The (current) view.

krodha wrote:
I see you claiming there is a "current view" that allegedly deviates from what you perceive to be orthodox (Ati), however the purported validity of this distinction is precisely what many are questioning at the moment.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
I wholeheartedly agree. However Dzogchen realization and practice is not what is being discussed here. It is a straw man argument to say otherwise.

krodha wrote:
What aspect of Dzogchen is being discussed then?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
Check out Guy Newland's videos on Madhyamaka.

krodha wrote:
He explains how the onset of gzhan stong in Tibet simultaneously served to herald a renaissance in Atiyoga? Honestly I'm not on board with the validity of such a (dzogchen) revision to begin with, so I'm not sure how Guy Newland substantiates this alleged refinement of Ati by way of gzhan stong Madhyamaka.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
Well for one thing the whole "empty of other" view, regardless of sect, seems to have been a Tibetan development. It seems to have gained traction in the last few hundred years. Guy Newland has some YouTube videos that go over all that.

krodha wrote:
How does this development translate to the modernized treatment of Dzogpachenpo you're claiming it catalyzed?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
My dilettante's understanding is that this is a fairly modern interpretation/presentation of Dzogchen. If you want to stick with a more classical presentation that's ok too.

krodha wrote:
What is the basis for this theory of Atiyoga modernity leaning towards gzhan stong?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
Dudjom R. said that Madhyamaka was great for an intellectual approach to emptiness, and Great Madhyamaka/Shentong was good for discussing emptiness from a meditational/experiential perspective. Great Madhyamaka is not subject to intellectual analysis the way Prasangika Madhyamaka is, and is approached through faith.

krodha wrote:
Semi off-topic, but just to point out; the association of gzhan stong with the moniker "Great Madhyamaka" is an arbitrary equivalence (since many other views have also received the title 'Great Madhyamaka'). You and Malcolm have discussed great Madhyamaka quite a few times:

Malcolm said:
It is sort of ridiculous to term gzhan stong "great madhyamaka" since it is a term used to describe several different positions amongst Tibetan Madhyamakas i.e. gzhan stong; the early Sakya/Nyingma view of free from extremes that goes right back to Kawa Paltseg, and of course Tsongkhapa's formulation.

The Indian texts also show no consistency in how the term is used, the anonymous pramāṇavidhvaṃsanaṭippiṭakavṛtti refers to its adherents as "great madhyamaka" and rejects the so called cittamatra madhyamaka [that Bhava advocates in the passage you reference] as inferior.

In reality, in the Indian context, "great madhyamaka is a term mostly used in tantric treatises; even here however it is used in various different ways. The Śrī-kālacakropadeśayogaṣaḍaṇgatantrapañjikā by Avadhutipāda states:
"The nature of the completion [stage] is said to be mahāmadhyamaka".
On other hand, the Śrī-ḍākārṇavamahāyoginītantrarājasyaṭīkāvohitaṭikā by Padmavajra states:
So called "madhyamaka" is the dharma of the essence, the freedom from four extremes of the mahāmadhyamaka of the Mahāyāna and the awakening of the fortunate.
Dombi Heruka's Śrīhevajrasādhana states:
One should mediate on the great madhyamaka free from all signs.
And the Tantric Candrakiriti's Samājābhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti states
Having manifested the mahāmadhyamaka that is like space, 
the sunlight of compassion benefits all sentient beings
The first person to use this term [Great Madhyamaka] in Tibet was Kawa Paltseg. He uses the term dbu ma chen po to refer to spros bral, freedom from extremes. His presentation of Madhyamaka bears no observable commonalities with gzhan stong.

The Sakyapas follow Kawa Paltseg's point of view, and refer to their Madhyamaka as great Madhyamaka also. The Gelugpas also refer to Lama Tsongkhapa's point of view as Great Madhyamaka.

So basically, everyone in Tibet refers to their preferred system of Madhyamaka as "great".
The term “great madhyamaka” has been used by all three primary Tibetan presentations of Madhyamaka, i.e. Tsongkhapa’s presentation of prasangika, the extrinsic emptiness school of the Jonangpas and the Sakya presentation known as “freedom from proliferation” or “freedom from extremes”.

Though the term “great madhyamaka” is not frequently used in the Sakya school to refer to our own presentation of Madhyamaka, it does occasionally crop up. The basis of the Great Madhyamaka of the Sakya masters is to be found primarily in the writings of Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen who states in his Great Song of Experience:

Freedom from extremes is beyond knowledge, expressions and objects,
Madhyamaka, Cittamatra and so on,
expressions in words are proliferations...
That view of Great Madhyamaka
is bliss free of delusion because it is not a proposition.

Another such instance may be found in the works of Lowo Khenchen, Sonam Lhundrup [1456-1532] who most notable for his expansions on Sakya Pandita’s famed Clarifying the Muni’s Intent [thub pa’i dgongs pa rab tu gsal]. In the brief work ,Ornamenting the Intent of Manjushri [thub pa dgongs gsal gyi 'chad thabs 'jam dbyangs dgongs rgyan], Lowo Khenchen identifies three strains of Madhyamaka:

Out of the three in Madhyamaka, the prasangikas maintain that one gradually enters the practice of the ten stages according to the explanations in The Introduction to Madhyamaka. The svatantrika madhyamikas maintain that one enters into the practice of Mahayāna through three stages of practice as it is explained in the Blaze of Dialectics “Not abandoning bodhicitta, correctly relying on the strict conduct of a muni, the search for understanding reality is the practice that accomplishes all aims”.

For the position of the third madhyamika, as Master Nāgārjuna states:

The Dharma taught by the Buddha
uses two truths.

Having gathered all phenomena into two truths, [they] maintain practice is applied to two classes of intellectual capacity, sharp and dull, of persons who are practicing those [two truths]:

When seeking reality, first
one should teach “everything exists”;
having comprehend meanings, and lacking desire,
later, [teach] absence.

Master Āryadeva teaches:

First, reject what is not meritorious,
in the middle, reject the self,
in the end, reject all views.

As Jetsun Rinpoche writes in the Great Song of Experience:

The supreme view is without views...
generally, there is no object to see in reality,
now, also, the view is not a view.
As for me, I will just stick with the great madhyamaka enunciated by Kawa Paltseg:

Freedom of two extremes in the ultimate
is asserted as the great madhyamaka.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Interview with Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje
Content:
Malcolm said:
Huh?

Most Madhyamakas before Tsongkhapas time were spros bral pas, and the Sakya school still is representative of that view, as is Mipham and Khenpo Shengga (who both studied Madhyamaka with Sakyapas).

I would not say that the main gsar ma view is represented by Gelug and Jonang approaches, since the Kagyus in general (Karma, Drugpa, Drikung, etc.) are all over the place when it comes to how they understand Madhyamaka.

krodha wrote:
Ah ok, makes sense. My Drikung Kagyu lama teaches spros bral and its true that the only view I've seen from the Sakya is spros bral... for some reason I was under the impression that the other Kagyu schools leaned toward gzhan stong, but perhaps it is more mixed than I thought.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
You are welcome to your view. It is valid Dharma--no question about it. And you are welcome to not accept and criticize other views as being too close to Advaita Vedanta and therefore heresy, which is my understanding of your objection. You are trying to be protective of your understanding of orthodoxy.

krodha wrote:
It's called upholding samyag drsti.

If even my correct view is to be ultimately abandoned,
How much more incorrect views?
- Śākyamūni

smcj said:
That is fine. But it is not universally accepted, and there are masters that disagree with you. Mostly it seems the experts that disagree with you are more modern, as the view seems to have evolved over time (from my limited perspective).

krodha wrote:
Patently false.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
lorem said:
Dharmakaya. Tathāgatagarbha.

krodha wrote:
Though the sugatagarbha is latent, unrealized and/or unripened dharmakāya. All beings have sugatagarbha, few realize dharmakāya.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
krodha wrote:
Choiceless awareness by itself would be the mere cognizance [clarity] of mind. The point is to recognize the (definitive) nature of mind i.e. the nature of cognizance [clarity], as empty. Hence; nondual clarity and emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 3:44 PM
Title: Re: Trungpa, Tathagatagarbha, and "True Self"
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
I directly quoted the Buddha, and I didn't give you my opinion or interpretation.

krodha wrote:
That is highly debatable. Especially given that such a position blatantly ignores a great deal of the Buddha's views that directly contradict the position you are apparently proposing he solely advocated for. The complete disregard for the indisputable amount of evidence clearly showing that the buddha was very much involved with positions contrary to yours, comes off as very disingenuous and manipulative. But this is sort of your M.O.

Son of Buddha said:
so your question should say:
"Why should I trust your direct quote from Buddha Shakyamuni over those of any credible teacher of Buddha Dharma?"

krodha wrote:
This is really reaching.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I can attest to the fact that his vibrations are truly outstanding.

krodha wrote:
Like the Boys of Beach...
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
krodha wrote:
"...it explains in the text that this nature equally encompasses everything from dharmakāya right down to the hells. This means that the qualities or characteristics of nature are the same, but the nature itself is not the same at all. (So the misinterpretation is that) without knowing and distinguishing between these two, (you think that) there is one thing which pervades everything from dharmakāya down to the hells. That is mistaken. It says many things here. Vedanta has this idea, too. It is the characteristics which are the same... If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen. 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen view. Hopefully you have understood clearly."
-- Lopon Tenzin Namdak


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 11:41 AM
Title: Re: Does anyone here use reddit?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The ātmavādin agenda.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Btw, I have heard Anam Thubten use the word "brahman" in this context.

krodha wrote:
whatareyousomesortoftirthika.jpg


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
and he uses "ground of being" all the time, says that it is who we really are.

krodha wrote:
"Ground of being" is just a bad translation of 'gzhi', there's also a horrid Wikipedia page about the gzhi as a "ground of being", just goes to show how rampant misconceptions can become.

rachmiel said:
But, as I wrote in the OP, he also says the ground cannot be found, and does not exist (or NOT not exist).

krodha wrote:
Rhetoric like that is pointing to a freedom from extremes, but that means the middle is ultimately negated as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
krodha wrote:
There is no "ground of being".


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 30th, 2014 at 9:54 AM
Title: Re: Does anyone here use reddit?
Content:
PorkChop said:
Well, not sure if songhill is lumped in with them, but he apparently has a long history on Buddhist forums.

krodha wrote:
Then he's a senior high ranking officer in the True Self mob.

Removed quoted Ad Hom ~~Dan74


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 30th, 2014 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: Does anyone here use reddit?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Son of Buddha posts there too, as well as others. Collectively they are the "r/Buddhism True Self mob".

Removed ad hom. ~~Dan74


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 29th, 2014 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Does anyone here use reddit?
Content:
krodha wrote:
r/Buddhism is fairly lively.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 10:01 AM
Title: Re: Interested in Information about the Drikung Kagyu
Content:
M.G. said:
I have practiced it since, and took some playful teasing about it from my Dharma friends (who are mostly Nyingmapa)

krodha wrote:
Interesting being that Drikung Kagyu and the Nyingma have quite a bit in common.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 25th, 2014 at 1:43 PM
Title: Re: Interview with Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje
Content:
lorem said:
Even Dolpopa and Tsongkhapa. Does it really matter from the side of a practitioner? I actually like Dolpopa's view but Tsongkhapa's rings true also. I've never thought it nihilistic as such. Just not conceptually available and who can describe the undescribable. Can't be put into words.

krodha wrote:
Tsongkhapa and Dolbupa represent both the main gsar ma views; (i) gelug, and (ii) gzhan stong. The rnying ma view that Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje is discussing is (iii) spros bral, which is different from Tsongkhapa's Gelug and Dolbupa's gzhan stong.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 25th, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Chapa Chökyi Senge refutes Prāsaṅgika?
Content:
lorem said:
Was it Nalanda who was in debate and had to call on Padmasambhawa as Senge Dongma.

krodha wrote:
Nālandā was the university/monastery the debate was held at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda, and Padmasambhava emanated as Senge Dradog (not Senge Dongma) because the debate between Padmasambhava and the tīrthika scholars escalated to a display of siddhis and magic. The non-buddhists made a threat with their magic, and Padmasambhava warned them that whatever provocation they had made was a bad idea, but the tīrthikas (underestimating Padmasambhava) scoffed at his remark and attacked anyway... so Padmasambhava emanated as Senge Dradog and destroyed them.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Title: Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?
Content:
smcj said:
Dudjom R.
Ultimate Reality is the mandala of the perfectly pure expanse of voidness. it is like a "magic" mirror. What unimpededly appears on it are all the things (dharmas) of relative reality, your mind included. (formatting mine)

Thus our minds are not the foundation for appearances, but are merely a type of appearance among all other appearances on the ultimate reality of this "magic mirror".

Dudjom R. continues:
There is not third reality of a truly existing mind or objets juxtaposed to the ultimate reality of the mirror and the relative reality of the images on it.

So everything is of this one nature, being nothing more than appearances on the ultimate reality of the "magic mirror". (Personally I believe that the correct term for this in English is monism.) And since Dudjom R. is commenting on Longchenpa who just equated ultimate reality with Buddha-nature, we can also call the magic mirror Buddha-nature. So you can say that a rock has the same fundamental Buddha-nature as a Buddha or sentient being, but obviously it is being expressed as an inanimate object, not an aware object.

Having said that I have no idea if that is the same as what Garuda is trying to say. I haven't really been able to figure out what his point is.

krodha wrote:
Ah, the iconic smcj Dudjom Rinpoche quote.

Monism would be a wrong view though, that conclusion is taking the mirror metaphor a little too literally IMO.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 21st, 2014 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
"I don't have to affirm or deny anything, therefore I am correct"..this is a highly questionable way of using notions of non duality or emptiness to further your own aims on the forum IMO, it's  a way of avoiding defense of your positions.

krodha wrote:
It's called eel wriggling [amaravikkhepa].


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 20th, 2014 at 12:44 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
garudha said:
There can not be any "empting", "decohesion" or any "insubstantiality", etc etc, of that which does not exist.

krodha wrote:
And what are you suggesting does not exist?

garudha said:
Emptiness is just a teaching in relativity and not Buddha's absolute truth.

krodha wrote:
What is the buddha's absolute truth according to you? In general, emptiness is never considered to be a relative principle.

garudha said:
Shall we start with the sutra quotes? I'll be quoting Buddhist Sutra and not commentary or modern literature which I do not consider authoritative.

krodha wrote:
It would indeed be strange if you quoted text you don't consider to be authoritative.

garudha said:
In any case; if it can't be explained in normal, everyday, language then it's likely that the advocate does not have any idea what the words actually mean.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps not... something like this would really be contingent on context.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 20th, 2014 at 12:29 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
This is literally the crux of the entire disagreements on the subject of Tathagatagarbha.

krodha wrote:
Not really.

Son of Buddha said:
Yogacara/Shentong Hold that the Unconditioned Tathagatagarbha/Trikaya are not illusions or unreal.
and only conditioned phenomena/Samsara are illusions and unreal.

krodha wrote:
No, they actually don't. The Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra, a Yogācāra text states:
Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also a word provisionally invented by the First Teacher. Now, if the First Teacher provisionally invented this word, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And, if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist.
Apart form the fact that the logic behind your suggestion of 'unreal conditioned phenomena opposing a truly real unconditioned nature' is atrocious and a massacre of the buddhadharma, gzhan stong merely states that the unconditioned is endowed with innate qualities, which is really no different than the so-called rang stong position they are allegedly contrasting. For if there is a truly existent and substantiated unconditioned nature, then qualities are impossible, mirroring Nāgārjuna's sentiments:
For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible, for those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 20th, 2014 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
garudha said:
I dispute there is any knowledge attainable.

Rephrasing the statement I made earlier, I show the Self is the only realm and conventional, already experienced, dimensionality is the absolute...

One who speaks about a knowable empty dimensionality, i.e. One who claims to be presently aware, necessarily voids the claimed emptiness-of-dimensionality by their very presence.

It follows, logically, that truly empty dimensionality is ultimately false and the true finality could only be the self which is already being experienced.

Therefore "emptiness" is not a teaching of the absolute and self is the ultimate dimensionality.

krodha wrote:
You appear to be misunderstanding what "emptiness" [śūnyatā] means. Rather than understanding emptiness to be denoting a lack of inherency, lack of substantiality, freedom from extremes etc., you seem to be mistaking it for a state of formless absorption [ārūpyadhātu] like the non-analytical cessations brought on through formless meditations [ārūpyadhyāna].


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 20th, 2014 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
garudha said:
When you're sure yourself why you're asking these questions, and you have a question that relates to Self / Non-self, I'm very happy to answer if you ask politely, courteously and show the necessary respect which one should have for oneself when communicating with others in public.
If you're not prepared to have a discussion based upon your own ideas then I see no point in continuing.

krodha wrote:
What's with the ultimatums and movements to establish (what you deem to be) acceptable conditions/boundaries that must be met in order to engage in further interaction (i.e., addressing people like they're five years old)?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 20th, 2014 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
garudha said:
You say that all "things" are like mirages, and as such I presume these things do not exist in true-reality.

krodha wrote:
Stating that all things are like mirages can hardly be called my own idea. The Ten Upamānas and Eight Examples of Illusion [skt. aṣṭamāyopamā, tib. sgyu ma'i dpe brgyad], from which the example of a mirage [skt. marīci] is originally derived, are fairly iconic metaphors found throughout the buddhadharma. Some of the earliest appearances of these metaphors appear in the Pheṇapiṇḍūpamasutta of the Saṃyuttanikāya:
Form is like a mass of foam, feeling like a bubble of water, perception is like a mirage, volition is like the trunk of a banana tree, consciousness is like a magic show: this is what the Buddha, a relative of the sun, has taught.
and the Dhammapada, v. 170:
See the world as a bubble of water, see it as a mirage. The lord of death does not see the person who considers the world in this way.
A mirage is used as an example of illusion in the Pañcaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra and is also used quite often by many of the prominent Madhyamaka luminaries; for example Āryadeva's Catuḥśataka:
Existence is like a burning brand brandished in a circle, a creation, a dream, a magic show, the moon reflected in water, a fog, an echo in the midst [of the mountains], a mirage, a cloud.
and from Nāgārjuna:
According to cognition of truth, [however], You maintain that there is no annihilation or permanence. [You] assert that the entire world is empty of substance, like a mirage.
-- Acintyastavaḥ
Those who see with their mind
That existence is like a mirage and an illusion,
They will not be corrupted
By views [grasping at] beginning and end.
-- Yuktiṣāṣṭikakārikā
Consciousness occurs in dependence on the internal and external sense-fields. Therefore consciousness is empty, like mirages and illusions... Karma-formations are like the city of gandharvas, illusions, mirages, nets of hair, foam, bubbles, phantoms, dreams, and wheels made with a firebrand.
-- Śūnyatāsaptati
Even the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra uses the mirage analogy:
Tell me how is the world like a magic show, a dream, like [a city] of the gandharvas, like a mirage and the moon reflected in water?
The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra describes the logic (behind implementing the notion) of a mirage in communicating the view of emptiness:
When the light of the sun and the wind stir up the dust, there is a mirage; in the desert, it appears as if there were gazelles and, on seeing them, not knowing, we assume the presence of water. It is the same for the characteristics of male and female [strīpuruṣa]: when the sun of the fetters [saṃyojana] and the afflictions [kleśa] has heated up the dust of the formations [saṃskāra] and the wind of bad thoughts [mithyā manasikāra] swirls in the desert of transmigration [saṃsāra], the person without wisdom asserts the characteristics of male and female. This is a mirage.

Furthermore, if the sight of the mirage from afar calls up the notion of water, from close up this notion disappears. In the same way, when the ignorant person is far away from the holy doctrine [āryadharma], he is ignorant of the non-existence of self [anātman], the emptiness of dharmas [dharmaśūnyatā], and the attributes to the aggregates [skandha], the elements [dhātu] and the bases of consciousness [āyatana] the characteristics of a person, male or female [which are foreign to it]. But when he has come close to the holy dharma, he discovers the true nature of dharmas [dharmasatyalakṣaṇa] and scatters the illusions and false notions. This is why bodhisattvas regard dharmas as a mirage.
In Longchenpa's sgyu ma ngal gso he uses eight examples of illusion [sgyu ma'i dpe brgyad] (including a mirage) to explain the non-arising nature of phenomena, stating:
Like a dream, objects perceived with the five senses are not there, but they appear through delusion. Like a magic illusion, things are made to appear due to the temporary coming together of causes and conditions. Like a hallucination, things appear, yet there is nothing there. Like a mirage, things appear, but they are not real. Like an echo, things can be perceived, but there is nothing there, either inside or outside. Like a city of gandharvas, there is neither a dwelling nor anyone to dwell. Like a reflection, things appear, but have no reality of their own. Like an apparition, there are different types of appearances, but they are not really there.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 19th, 2014 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Sherab said:
In short you are merely saying that the conditioned and the unconditioned being mere conventional designations are in the end illusions or unreal.

krodha wrote:
I said more than that, that was simply the last point I mentioned. However yes if you're in a desert and see a mirage that you mistake to be an oasis; the oasis does not actually have a conditioned and/or unconditioned nature because the oasis is ultimately a figment of your confusion. Conventionally sure, there is an oasis which has an unconditioned mirage-nature, but not ultimately.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 19th, 2014 at 1:44 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Sherab said:
I have come to loathe the using of mutually exclusive terms such as conditioned and unconditioned in an explanation of a buddhist term.   It is makes no sense to speak of a thing as both conditioned and unconditioned.

krodha wrote:
The 'conditioned' is the allegedly existent thing, which is of course ultimately a misconception. In the context of the application of the buddhadharma (which intends to reveal the unreality of the allegedly existent thing), the appearance of the existent thing (to s/he who perceives said thing due to being under the influence of ignorance), is given the conventional title of being 'conditioned'. It is conditioned because for the ignorant sentient being, it appears to be a thing which has originated, endures in time, and will eventually cease. A buddha knows that there is no such thing, and that said thing is merely a misconception. Meaning; a buddha knows that the supposedly conditioned thing is in fact unconditioned... and so it is said that the conditioned thing possesses an unconditioned nature. Because in truth, said thing has never truly originated to begin with. Realizing the unreality of the conditioned thing, is cognizing its unconditioned nature.

In short; the 'conditioned' is the thing, the 'unconditioned' is the emptiness of said thing. Both are merely conventional designations, because something that has never truly arisen in the first place cannot actually have a conditioned and/or unconditioned nature. The conditioned is a misconception, and the unconditioned is an epistemic insight regarding the fact that the conditioned is a misconception.

Sherab said:
The question then is, what does the term tathagatagarbha refers to?  Something unconditioned, or something pure but conditioned, or something impure and conditioned?  Until this is sorted out, the debate will continue to go round in circles.

krodha wrote:
The tathagatagarbha is one's unrealized, innate, unconditioned nature. It is like saying milk has a butter-nature... latent within the milk is the potential for it to become butter and if the right conditions are met, it can indeed become butter. So the milk is neither the same nor different than its nature.

Tathagatagarbha is the innate potentiality for buddhahood that all sentient beings possess. All beings possess that potentiality, however only buddhas have fully actualized that potential so that it is omniscient wisdom.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 3:16 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
your quote deals in relation to those who already belong to a hindu sect and hold heterodox self views for these people who hear about the Tathagatagarbha already hold mistaken views, which is why the counter medicine of Selflessness is applied for them.

krodha wrote:
It is addressing individuals like you who are drawn to an ātmavādin view, yet nevertheless are interested in the buddhadharma. One could argue you are exhibit A when it comes to demonstrating the upāya of the tathāgatagarbha. Although I still believe you err into a crypto-Vedanta type view.

Jigme Lingpa essentially echoes the same insight the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra addresses:
"In the lower vehicles this [ālaya] is taught as the buddha nature [tathāgatagarbha] for the sake of temporarily guiding the immature ones who are eaten by doubts regarding the stainless true condition."


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 12:23 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
krodha wrote:
O Mahāmati, the tathāgatas thus teach the garbha in so far as they teach the tathāgatagarbha in order to attract those who are attached to the heterodox ātmavāda. How can people whose minds fall into the conceptual theory bearing on an unreal self (abhūtātmavikalpa) attain quickly the complete awakening in the supreme and exact sambodhi, possessing a mind comprised in the domain of the three gateways of emancipation? O Mahāmati, it is because of this that the tathāgatas teach the tathāgatagarbha.
-- Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
The dharmakaya appears for the first level bodhisattvas, not only to Buddhas:

krodha wrote:
First bhūmi bodhisattvas can see the basis dharmakāya, Buddhas know the result dharmakāya.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 17th, 2014 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha only becomes an issue when people interpret it literally and end up advocating for a crypto-Vedanta type view where dharmatā is suggested to exist separately from conditioned dharmas.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 17th, 2014 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Mastering phowa
Content:
krodha wrote:
Relevant outtake from "Looking for ancient Tibet" about Phowa. Briefly discusses the signs of successful practice and the use of the kuśa grass blade to signify said success:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 17th, 2014 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Mastering phowa
Content:
zenman said:
Does the swelling mean that the skin has swelled a bit on the crown area? How big can this swelling be? Like finger tip size or something like that?

krodha wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you practicing this at home without the guidance of a teacher?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 10:37 AM
Title: Re: First time questions
Content:
tiagolps said:
...and i'm not sure if its true but also heard tibetan temples used to fight each other for young monks? Not sure about that one though.

krodha wrote:
Anti-Tibetan propaganda, no doubt.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: What should kin do during First Bardo?
Content:
veryken said:
I’m still curious to learn (now 13 days after my Grandmother’s death and funeral was yesterday) about the further details of the intermediate states.

As I understand, the circumstances of her passing matters. This is what I’ve always believed even before studying Buddhism. She was peaceful and quiet on her last day, or so I’m told. I did not witness it. She died in bed after suffering painful paralysis with complications requiring drugs that included morphine at some point, all of which I did eyewitness (sadly). She then apparently eased into a near-comatose condition after more days, barely recognizing family and not able to eat, drink, etc.

But I’m told the moment of death was peaceful, and her mouth was naturally closed. So I’m told.

My burning questions relate to the first intermediate state after death. First, what’s the duration of the First Bardo? Then more importantly, what should the family do during this period to help the “consciousness” find the proper path? Or what would monastics do in assistance to the family?

As for her merits, it would be obvious to anybody that she was a very good person her entire life. Those who really knew her may occasionally catch a few moments of regret — maybe trivial to others who rationalize their own nonvirtue, but sadly remembered by a 98-yr old woman with fading memory. I try to take everything into account.

krodha wrote:
There's four, six or seven bardos depending on the system concerned.

The Four Bardos:
1. the natural bardo of this life (Skt. jatyantarābhava; Tib. རང་བཞིན་སྐྱེ་བའི་བར་དོ་; Wyl. rang bzhin skye ba'i bar do) which begins when a connection with a new birth is first made and continues until the conditions that will certainly lead to death become manifest.

2. the painful bardo of dying (Skt. mumūrṣāntarābhava; Tib. འཆི་ཁ་གནད་གཅོད་ཀྱི་བར་དོ་; Wyl. 'chi kha gnad gcod kyi bar do) which begins when these conditions manifest and continues until the 'inner respiration' ceases and the luminosity of the dharmakaya dawns.

3. the luminous bardo of dharmata (Skt. dharmatāntarābhava; Tib. ཆོས་ཉིད་འོད་གསལ་གྱི་བར་དོ་; Wyl. chos nyid 'od gsal gyi bar do) which lasts from the moment the dharmakaya luminosity dawns after death and continues until the visions of precious spontaneous perfection are complete.

4. the karmic bardo of becoming (Skt. bhāvāntarābhava; Tib. སྲིད་པ་ལས་ཀྱི་བར་དོ་; Wyl. srid pa las kyi bar do) which lasts from the moment the bardo body is created and continues until the connection with a new rebirth is made.
The six bardos include the above four plus these two which are part of the first bardo listed above (the natural bardo of this life):
5. the bardo of meditation (Skt. samādhyantarābhava; Tib. བསམ་གཏན་གྱི་བར་དོ་, Wyl. bsam gtan gyi bar do)

6. the bardo of dreaming (Skt. svapanāntarābhava; Tib. རྨི་ལམ་གྱི་བར་དོ་, Wyl. rmi lam gyi bar do)
The seven bardos are found in the Bönpo teachings and closely resemble the sixfold model above.

By the "First Bardo" I take it you mean the 'bardo of dying' mentioned above? Once death has occurred the bardo of dying consists of the dissolution of the elements, which is apparently quite painful and that will cause most people to lose consciousness or 'faint'. That loss of consciousness causes one to miss the arising of the bardo of dharmatā and regain consciousness again either (i) in the midst of the bardo of dharmatā, or (ii) in the bardo of becoming. Even those who do not lose consciousness (in the bardo of dying) are not guaranteed to recognize the bardo of dharmatā when it arises if they are not trained to recognize it. In order to remain lucid throughout the entire process one must be very stable in their practice. Essentially, if one is not able to recognize dreams while sleeping and dream lucidly, then there is not much hope of maintaining awareness in the bardo. When you see the Bardo Tödrol Chenmo [The Great Liberation through Hearing in the Bardo] being read to those who have passed, the first two bardos are addressed and the aim is to help the individual become aware and recognize their nature... however after that the goal is to help them traverse the bardo of becoming.

Here is a link for the bardos:
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Bardo

And the Bardo Tödrol Chenmo:
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Bardo_Th " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;ödrol_Chenmo


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self
Content:
krodha wrote:
The Laṅkāvatāra sūtra states:
"Tathāgatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’ [ālayavijñāna], is to be completely purified."


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Buddhapalita's Mulamadhyamakavrtti Translation Project
Content:
Bakmoon said:
What a coincidence. I was just thinking today about whether or not Buddhapalita's commentary had been translated. I'm looking forward to finally reading Buddhapalita's commentary.

Have any other major Indian commentaries on the Mulamadhyamakakarika been translated into English, such as Bhavaviveka's commentary or Chandrakirti's commentary?

krodha wrote:
Candrakīrti's commentary titled the Prasannapadā has been translated into english by Mervyn Sprung; "The Essential Chapters from the Prasannapadā of Candrakīrti" first published in 1979 by Prajñā Press... and also a translation by J.D. Dunne and S.L. McClintock titled "Lucid Words: A Commentary on Nāgārjuna's Wisdom by Candrakīrti", which is apparently a draft translation from 2001.

Bhāvaviveka's Prajñāpradīpa [Prajñāpradīpamūlamadhyamakavṛtti] has been translated into english by William L. Ames it seems, circa 1986-1989, although it appears to be a dissertation or monograph... perhaps partly published (six chapters) through the University of Washington, 1986.

There may be others.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self
Content:
krodha wrote:
Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche addressing the 'higher self', he essentially says it is the pinnacle of samsara (which is still samsara):

"Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual plea­sures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concen­tration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely men­tal pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limit­less space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is com­pletely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast. 

Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the bound­ary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain."
-- Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 11th, 2014 at 1:23 AM
Title: Buddhapalita's Mulamadhyamakavrtti Translation Project
Content:
krodha wrote:
A project to translate Buddhapalita’s Commentary to Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

Project website:
http://www.buddhapalitavrtti.com/index.php

Link to download a draft translation of chapters 1 and 2:
http://buddhapalitavrtti.com/BUDDHAPALITAVRITTI_CHAPTERS_1_%20AND_2.pdf

About the text:

Buddhapalita Mulamadhyamakavritti
The translation of the Commentary to Fundamental Wisdom called Buddhapalita (Buddhapalita-mulamadhyamakavrtti; dbu ma rtsa ba'i 'grel pa Buddhapalita) by Buddhapalita (sangs rgyas bskyangs) will be based on the version translated by Jñanagarbha and Cog ro klu'i rgyal mtshan (Derge 3842, mdo 'grel, tsa 158b1-281a4) with reference to the critical edition prepared by Max Welleser (editor) Buddhapalita. Mulamadhyamakavrtti. Motilal Banarsidas. India, 1992.

The structure of the text:

Buddhapalita’s work is a word commentary to the Fundamental Wisdom (MMK) of Nagarjuna also translated by Jñanagarbha and Cog Ro Klu'i Rgyal Mtshan (Derge 3824, mdo 'grel, tsa 1a1-19a6). The Fundamental Wisdom has twenty-seven chapters dealing with a variety of subjects. Buddhapalita has maintained the structure of Nagarjuna’s text without adding further categories or subdivisions, implying that Buddhapalita was satisfied with the structure as it stood, and he did not elaborate a more detailed exegetical framework. The only structural divisions found in the text are the ten sections (bam po) which divide the text into ten parts of equal length.

The twenty-seven chapters of the Fundamental Wisdom cover a variety of metaphysical and ordinary categories:

1. Investigation of conditions (rkyen)
2. Investigation of coming and going (’gro ‘ong)
3. Investigation of sense powers (dbang po)
4. Investigation of aggregates (phung po)
5. Investigation of realms (khams)
6. Investigation of attachment and the attached person (’dod chags dang chags pa)
7. Investigation of generation, abidance, and destruction (skye ba dang gnas pa dang ‘jig pa)
8. Investigation of agents and actions (byed pa po dang las)
9. Investigation of prior existence (snga rol nas gnas pa)
10. Investigation of fire and firewood (me dang bud shing)
11. Investigation of former and latter limits (sngon dang phyi ma’i mtha’)
12. Investigation of made by self and made by other (bdag gis byas pa dang gzhan gyis byas pa)
13. Investigation of compositional factors (’du byas)
14. Investigation of meeting (’phrad pa)
15. Investigation of essence (rang bzhin)
16. Investigation of bondage and liberation (bcings pa dang thar pa)
17. Investigation of actions (las)
18. Investigation of self and dharma (bdag dang chos)
19. Investigation of time (dus)
20. Investigation of collections (tshogs pa)
21. Investigation of arisal and destruction (’byung ba dang ‘jig pa)
22. Investigation of the tathagata (de bzhin gshegs pa)
23. Investigation of distortion (phyin ci log)
24. Investigation of arya truths (’phags pa’i bden pa)
25. Investigation of nirvana (mya nga las ‘das pa)
26. Investigation of the twelve links of existence (srid pa’i yan lag bcu gnyis)
27. Investigation of views (lta ba)

History of the project:

During his visit to Sydney in December 2009, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama spoke of the importance of understanding Nagarjuna’s presentation of emptiness through relying on the commentaries of Buddhapalita and Candrakirti. In particular he mentioned that Buddhapalita’s Mulamadhyamakavrtti was an excellent commentary to Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom. But when I inquired about this work it became increasingly clear that to date no complete English translation has been undertaken.

We contacted Thubten Jinpa who is the Principal Translator for His Holiness The Dalai Lama and he said "taking on this project is a very worthy project. Traditionally too, according to the legend, it is at a crucial point of reading of chapter 18 of this text, that Tsongkhapa gained sudden insight into the ultimate nature of reality." So with his encouragement we set about to address this omission and to produce and publish a complete and accurate translation of this highly regarded commentary. Through this website, we hope to raise awareness about the project and provide the opportunity to actively sponsor this meritorious undertaking.

Following the success of this project we plan to sponsor additional key works within the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition. This website provides a simple means for those interested in supporting this project to make donations and receive current information on the progress of the project. The estimated total cost for translation, preparing a critical edition, foreword and introduction is AU$27,800. For information on the cost breakdown please click here or if you require any additional information about this or other potential future projects please contact me.

Alan Carter
Project Coordinator

About the translator:

Dr Ian Coghlan (Jampa Ignyen) is currently engaged in research on a range of Buddhist topics. His qualifications include completion of the traditional fifteen year Geshé Degree course in Tibetan Buddhism, covering the five core topics: middle way view, perfection of wisdom, logic, ethics, and metaphysics, at Sera Monastic University, India (1980-1995) and a PhD in Asian Studies at La Trobe University focusing on Tibetan Buddhist metaphysics.

He is a translator for the Institute of Tibetan Classics (ITC), Montreal, Canada. This body is one of the peak institutions for the translation of Tibetan Buddhist works, and its director Professor Geshé Thubten Jinpa is the principal translator to the Dalai Lama. The ITC is primarily engaged in producing a series called "The Library of Tibetan Classics" (LTC) which involves the preparation of critical Tibetan editions, their English translations, and introductions.

His contribution to this series will be volumes 22 and 23, which are currently being finalized for publication by Wisdom, Boston. He is also a translator for the Segyu Foundation, California and an adjunct research fellow at Monash Asia Institute, Monash University, Melbourne.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 10th, 2014 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Concept-free Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Malcolm shared this quote some time ago, which is relevant to this issue:

Malcolm said:
In addition, a so called “pandita” is described as “A scholar in the foundation of outer and inner objects of knowledge.” A so called “kusali” is described as “One who has the most dedication inwardly after severing all outer distractions.”
In terms of actual perfect Buddhahood: the first, having become knowledgeable about all objects of knowledge, has severed doubt through hearing, reflection and meditation. Then, because of severing doubt through meditating which makes samadhi essential, the pandita gradually attains Buddhahood after actualizing the Dharma of realization. A kusali necessarily has the same basis, but when considered alone, a pandita is closer to Buddhahood.
-- Sakya Pandita

krodha wrote:
The point being that a so-called "pandita" has an advantage over the kusali because the pandita has the benefit of having severed doubt in relation to all three prajñās [hearing, reflection, meditation]. Whereas the kusali does not possess the benefit of the prajñā of hearing or the prajñā of reflection to the same degree that a pandita does, and that creates a disadvantage for the kusali.

Also, regarding the 'conceptual' versus the 'non-conceptual' aspects of practice; Dudjom Lingpa addresses the claim that involvement with (provisional) conceptual views and practices is a hindrance to the ultimate non-conceptual view. He attests that it is not, and uses the analogy of an ear which has water trapped in it, citing that one of the most effective ways of removing that trapped water is actually pouring more water into the ear, which will successfully wash out the water which is initially trapped leaving the ear free of water. His point being that in the same way, the use of concepts and learning (within the context of the buddhadharma), serves the same purpose.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 9th, 2014 at 1:49 PM
Title: Re: When you die, do you go to Heaven? Why or why not?
Content:
veryken said:
They "simply go through the bardo." Yes.

But...

Afflicted aggregates? Illusion of consistency? Habitual tendencies creating the appearance of a sentient being? DELUDED sentient beings for that matter? Ignorant ones, sure. An unreal charade?!

If I wasn't already middle-aged, successful enough, and steadfast on the path to enlightenment, I would be totally scared out of my mind! Surely there has to be more encouraging words? I'm still heart broken for the loss of my Grandmother.

krodha wrote:
Ah, sorry man you seemed like you wanted to delve deeper into the topic than the basic stuff that had been shared so far, my apologies.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 9th, 2014 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: When you die, do you go to Heaven? Why or why not?
Content:
veryken said:
Thank you for the replies.

Your respectful quotation of my word "heaven" makes it even more elusive (for me to understand). I've actually always thought that there was "no heaven" — that even the word "heaven" is a misnomer in Buddhism, not to speak of its impermanence.

krodha wrote:
I mean, yes it is essentially a misnomer but there's no problem with referring to the deva realm as 'heaven' in a conventional sense (in the same way we conventionally refer to the lowest realm of the Naraka, as the 'hell realm' [avīci]).

veryken said:
And upon looking  up the terms you used, I'm more referring to people rather than Devas in the Samsara cycle. Surely nobody (living today) has direct personal experience of heaven. But in a rephrase of my question (which actually isn't my own question but one for sake of discussion) — is it wrong/ imprecise/ misguided to say "now that she has died, we want her to go directly to heaven?" (and therefore we must do this and that yadda yadda yadda during the Buddhist funeral, etc.)

krodha wrote:
At death sentient beings simply go through the bardo. If they fail to recognize the nature of their mind in the bardo (which would liberate them) then they are reborn. So you can say 'now that she has died, I hope she has a swift and high rebirth'... but in the context of the buddhadharma there is no heaven in the bardo.

In the ultimate sense however the entire process is illusory...

Essentially all that is reincarnating (or being 'reborn') are causes and conditions, which is the only thing that is ever occurring. Afflicted aggregates beget afflicted aggregates, each serving as simultaneous cause and effect. So there is no individual 'soul' or entity as such that is being reborn... and ironically, the fact that there is no inherent soul or permanent entity is precisely why rebirth is possible. The buddhadharma simply states that by way of pratītyasamutpāda [dependent co-origination]; causes and conditions proliferate ceaselessly where there is a fertile basis for said proliferation. These factors create the illusion of consistency in conditoned phenomena (phenomena capable of existing and/or not-existing), and the illusion of an enduring entity which was allegedly born, exists in time and will eventually cease. Ultimately, the so-called entity is simply patterns of afflicted propensities, habitual tendencies etc. however over time, these factors become fortified and solidified creating the appearance of an autonomous sentient being. The point of the buddhadharma is to cut through this dense build up of conditioning and ideally dispel it altogether.

Rebirth is the result of unceasing karmic (cause and effect) activity. If ignorance of the unreality of that activity is not uprooted, then said activity simply persists indefinitely. An easy example is the fact that we wake up in the morning with the feeling that we are the same individual who fell asleep the night before, however all that has persisted are aggregates that appropriate further aggregates, ad infinitum. We as deluded sentient beings do not realize that there is no actual continuity to the appearance of these so-called aggregates, and so that ignorance acts as fuel for further unfolding of the illusion of a substantiated, core, essential identity in persons and phenomena (and the habitual behavior and conditioning predicated upon that ignorance serves as the conditions for the continual arising of said illusion). If these causes and conditions are not resolved then the process simply goes on and on through apparent lifetimes, the entire process being akin to an unreal charade.

From Nāgārjuna's Pratītyadsamutpādakarika:
"Empty (insubstantial and essenceless) dharmas (phenomena) are entirely produced from dharmas strictly empty; dharmas without a self and [not] of a self. Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals, fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes. Although the aggregates are serially connected, the wise are to comprehend nothing has transferred. Someone, having conceived of annihilation, even in extremely subtle existents, he is not wise, and will never see the meaning of ‘arisen from conditions’."

and In his Pratītyasamutpādakarikavhyakhyana, Nāgārjuna states in reply to a question:
Question: "Nevertheless, who is the lord of all, creating sentient beings, who is their creator?"
Nāgārjuna replies: "All living beings are causes and results."

And in the same text:
"Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 9th, 2014 at 8:39 AM
Title: Re: When you die, do you go to Heaven? Why or why not?
Content:
krodha wrote:
In buddhism, "heaven" is essentially a peaceful higher realm called a 'deva loka'. It is the highest realm among the six realms of samsara, however being that it is still part of samsāra it is viewed as a relative state and it therefore (i) does not last, and (ii) in the grand scheme of things is really no better than any of the five other realms. Devas live much longer than humans but they too eventually die. Samsara is unceasing, meaning the rounds of birth and death never end unless one is liberated. Buddhas are no longer reborn in samsara.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 9th, 2014 at 8:27 AM
Title: Re: When you die, do you go to Heaven? Why or why not?
Content:
krodha wrote:
These documentaries may help explain the Tibetan Buddhist view on death:

The Tibetan Book Of The Dead: The Great Liberation
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


and,

Secret Tibetan Book Of The Dead
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


and,

The Tibetan Book of The Dead: A Way of Life
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 8th, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Title: Re: Death, Karma, Heaven, Rebirth
Content:
veryken said:
However, in anybody interested in offering a direct reply for purposes of discussion? I asked very specific questions after having searched and researched. I won't get offended if you use my Grandmother as an example, but some background info on her has been provided if you might find yourself off base.

krodha wrote:
I'm sure you'll get some more replies soon, it's midnight U.S. east coast time and 4 or 5am in Europe so it's sort of a dead zone timewise for people to be active online and posting.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 8th, 2014 at 9:54 AM
Title: Re: Death, Karma, Heaven, Rebirth
Content:
krodha wrote:
The bardo is what you're looking for:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 7th, 2014 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: Eyes open meditation question
Content:
blackghost said:
...as I understand it there should be some kind of soft focus in the space between the eyes and the floor, possibly with the eyes half closed. I'm finding this a bit tricky even after a few weeks with not knowing how much focussing/lack of focussing to do and how much visual blur is normal when doing this practice as when I relax the eyes I tend to go somewhat cross-eyed and everything seems to start moving around which doesn't seem ideal. Does anyone know of a link to some detailed instructions regarding what to do regarding eyes-open sitting or any suggestions from anyone who has some good experience with this would be welcome. Many thanks.

krodha wrote:
This is a gazing technique that is used in certain systems in order to use space as a support. In terms of śamatha [tib. zhi gnas] this would usually follow a period of time where an external object is used for support. So first śamatha with support (focus on an object), then śamatha without support (focus on space). There are other practices (besides śamatha) that implement gazes like this but they require transmission.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 6th, 2014 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Back problems
Content:
Greg_the_poet said:
Has anyone used this approach and has it helped with any back pains?

krodha wrote:
That method is commonly used by yogins doing practices that involve sitting for extended periods of time. They use meditation belts [gom tag] though rather than tying fabric. You can also get a meditation stick [gom ten] to lean on as well.

I'm not sure where you're located but here in the U.S. drug stores like Walgreens carry walking canes, retractable metal ones and or the full size wooden kind. The retractable metal ones are generally the right size for sitting when fully collapsed (the handle tucked under the armpit), however the wooden canes can be cut to the right size as well.

As for the belts I know certain online stores carry them, or perhaps certain dharma events (I bought mine at a retreat).


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 6th, 2014 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Concept-free Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
A1 and A2 are essentially synonymous. A1 is addressing the individual who has knowledge of their ultimate nature and A2 is addressing the nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 6th, 2014 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Concept-free Buddhism
Content:
rachmiel said:
Is there a school of Buddhism that sees realized existence as existence without concepts? (Including such foundational conceptual structures as: reincarnation, karma, the Noble Truths, etc.)

krodha wrote:
All schools of Buddhism teach that one's ultimate nature as free of all concepts. Karma, rebirth, the path laid out by the four noble truths, all apply to the relative condition of afflicted sentient beings (which is all of us)... only Buddhas are free of karma, rebirth and have no need for the path.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 6th, 2014 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Concept-free Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Lists, practices, paths, doctrines, laws, dogma, etc., are all conventional supports to help realize your non-conceptual nature. Since they're ultimately merely conventions (like everything else) they shouldn't be an issue and there's really no reason to actively pursue a 'concept free' route. Besides, they're just tools and it's useful to implement tools, we have no problem using our computer in a light and free manner... one should be able to relate to paths, doctrines etc., in the same way. In most cases one ends up making a job far more difficult without the proper tools, same goes for practicing the buddhadharma.

Really if you're looking to dispense with lists, practices, paths, doctrines, laws, dogma, this means you're looking at these things as something inherent that needs to be abandoned instead of viewing them as conventional supports. Alot of secular type paths fall victim to this mistake, they see some elements of the dharma as unnecessary and seek to transform the teachings into something perhaps more "modern" etc., and all they end up doing is eviscerating the teaching so it is crippled beyond hope of repair and unable to produce its intended results. Those individuals have been conditioned all their lives to see things inherently and therefore cannot relate to doctrine, paths, lists, practices in a free and easy way. Anders is right the freedom is in how you relate to those concepts, not in rejecting them.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 4th, 2014 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: American tulku gets Ebola
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also found this info:

NBC cameraman Ashoka Mukpo, 33, has been infected with Ebola in Liberia. He is the son of Buddhist monk Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and Lady Diana Judith Mukpo, however, his biological father is Dr. Mitchell Levy whom Lady Diana had been sleeping with at the time. Ashoka's mother married the Tibetan Buddhist lama when she was just 16. Trungpa identified Ashoka as a 'tulku', a reincarnation of a Tibetan teacher. NBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman and her crew have quarantined themselves for 21 days over fears they they might have contracted Ebola, as well.

Dailymail article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779257/NBC-cameraman-Ebola-reincarnation-Tibetan-teacher-mother-married-Buddhist-guru-16.html

Shambhala Times article:
http://shambhalatimes.org/2014/10/02/important-news-about-ashoka-mukpo/


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 1st, 2014 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Endless lives, past and ahead
Content:
Lindama said:
edit:  this is not zen, for sure.

krodha wrote:
It surely is, but believe whatever you'd like...

Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō:

5.386 "If people who study Buddha Dharma have no genuine faith or true mindfulness, they will certainly dispense with and ignore [the law of] causality."

7.504 "Tathagatas [Buddhas] never go beyond clarifying cause and effect"

7.510 "Students of the way cannot dismiss cause and effect. If you discard cause and effect, you will ultimately deviate from practice-realization."


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 3:09 PM
Title: Re: What are the signs of a successful spiritual practice?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"What are the signs of progress in our practice? What can we expect? Should we wait for a signal from the guru – or an award? According to Karma Chagme Rinpoche, we will have no experiences, no special dreams, no pure visions. The 'king of all signs,' also known as the 'sign of no-sign,' which was highly prized by the Kagyupa masters of the past, is when renunciation mind, sadness and devotion blaze in your mind. The signs to be cherished most include an escalating appetite for dharma practice; noticing the futility of everything you do; everincreasing conflicts as a result of old habits; and while you may still have the urge to party with your friends, to be plagued by the unwelcome sense that the whole thing is a useless waste of time.

Therefore do not constantly aim to finish the practice. Instead, try to accept that your spiritual journey will never end. Your journey began with the wish that you, personally, bring all sentient beings to enlightenment, so until that wish is fulfilled, your activities as a bodhisattva will never cease."
- Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 6:28 AM
Title: Buddha Ken Doll
Content:
krodha wrote:
Apparently an artist couple are making Ken and Barbie doll religious figures, including Buddha Ken...

http://www.sienteamerica.com/posts/10312-polemica-en-argentina-por-barbie-y-ken-religiosos

And Kali Barbie:
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2014/09/23/Plastic-prophets-Barbies-become-religious-icons/1581411483771/


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:
garudha said:
What exactly is this "nescience entrenchment" ?

krodha wrote:
Ridding Oneself of the Two Sets of Obscurations in Sutra and Highest Tantra According to Nyingma and Sakya:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/path/eliminating_2_sets_obscurations.html


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:
garudha said:
According to Doctrine of Buddhism such feelings are non-existent and cannot be apprehended.

krodha wrote:
That should say: "According to Doctrine of Buddhism such feelings are ultimately non-existent and cannot be apprehended."

However if we grasp at the ultimate then all we end up doing is advocating for a nihilist view.

Jigme Lingpa calls this type of view 'being sealed by a definitive view of emptiness', it can potentially be a major deviation if uncorrected.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 13th, 2014 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: H.H. XIV Dalai Lama says he should be the Last Dalai Lam
Content:
krodha wrote:
Stephen Colbert on "The Dalai Lama Drama":

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/lqm25y/dalai-lama-drama


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 12th, 2014 at 2:32 PM
Title: Re: The Secret Drugs of Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Interesting, never heard of that theory.

Apart from their feathers symbolizing visionary appearances (thigles, etc., which are not drug induced), the association of the Peacock in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna is traditionally interpreted in this way:

All of us experience states of mind that cause us to feel anxious, depressed, fearful, uncertain, insecure, envious, doubtful, impatient. These feelings can seem so powerful at times that we try to eradicate them as quickly as possible through the usual methods: we try to repress them, drink them away, shop them away, frak them away, blame them away, or whatever it is we do when we experience sensations that aren’t pleasing to us.

Following are the first three verses from a teaching called "The wheel of Sharp Weapons", written by Dharmaraksita:

1. In jungles of poisonous plants strut the peacocks, though medicine gardens of beauty lie near, The masses of peacocks do not find gardens pleasant, but thrive on the essence of poisonous plants. 

2. In similar fashion the brave Bodhisattvas remain in the jungle of worldly concern. No matter how joyful this world's pleasure gardens, these Brave Ones are never attracted to pleasures, but thrive in the jungle of suffering and pain.

3. We spend our whole life in the march for enjoyment, yet tremble with fear at the mere thought of pain; thus since we are cowards, we are miserable still, but the brave Bodhisattvas accept suffering gladly, and gain from their courage a true lasting joy.

While preparing for a dharma talk about this subject last week, I learned that peacocks aren't very particular with regard to what kinds of food they'll eat: the brighter in color the object is, the better. They are drawn to a variety of plants and insects, and in fact they will even eat poisonous snakes if they come across one that's colorful enough. What's even more interesting is that just for the sake of amusement they will follow around a slithering, poisonous snake for a while, just observing it curiously before they devour it. And it is said that the poison they ingest from plants and snakes actually makes the colors of their plumage all the more vibrant and beautiful.

What if changed our approach to difficult, poisonous states of mind and met them with the same courage and curiosity as a peacock? 

Instead of running away from every mind state and emotion that feels threatening, we could simply observe the thoughts and sensations attached to these states of mind without getting caught up in the story about how they came about and who or what is to blame. 

Fixating on our stories only serves to inflame the poisonous feelings. Of course it is important to acknowledge what kinds of circumstances in our lives might be contributing and creating the conditions for suffering, and we should work to alter those circumstances whenever appropriate. But eventually we have to take responsibility for our own states of mind and realize that external events should not be able to dictate when we feel well and when we do not. 

We mustn't be our brain's bitch.

We liberate ourselves by simply resting our minds on the challenging feelings we experience without the usual overlay of our thoughts about how good or bad it feels, or why we feel this way, or who is to blame for how we feel. We can drop the storyline, drop the constant inner commentary, drop the ideas and concepts about what we are experiencing and instead directly experience the reality of our life as it is at any given moment. We don't have to obsess over negative emotions and we don't have to chase them away either--we can simply notice them the way we notice our thoughts when we meditate: with bare, brave attention.

When we do this we can further cultivate qualities of love and compassion that we can apply towards ourselves and other people. We can make use of our painful mind states and transform them into something that opens our hearts and allows us to be of more service to others.

By immersing ourselves in the reality of our moment to moment experience we can make friends with impermanence and ride it's wave rather than have it crash over us and cause us to drown.
-Lawrence Grecco


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: time for a long sleep.
Content:
krodha wrote:
Incidentally, today is World Suicide Prevention Day...


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: H.H. XIV Dalai Lama says he should be the Last Dalai Lam
Content:
krodha wrote:
China tells Dalai Lama again to respect reincarnation
BEIJING Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:31am EDT

(Reuters) - China repeated a call on the Dalai Lama on Wednesday to respect what it said was the historic practice of reincarnation, after the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader implied in a newspaper interview he may be the last to hold the position.

The Dalai Lama, in an interview with German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, said the tradition of the post could end with him, adding the Tibetan Buddhism was not dependent on a single person.

The Dalai Lama, 79, has stated previously that he will not be reborn in China if Tibet is not free and that no one, including China, has the right to choose his successor "for political ends". China has previously warned the Dalai Lama he has no right to abandon the tradition of reincarnation.

China, which regards the Dalai Lama as a dangerous separatist, has ruled Tibet with an iron fist since Communist troops marched in 1950. The Dalai Lama fled into exile in India in 1959 after an abortive uprising against Chinese rule.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a daily news briefing that when it came to the reincarnation of living Buddhas, including the Dalai Lama, China had a "set religious procedure and historic custom".

"China follows a policy of freedom of religion and belief, and this naturally includes having to respect and protect the ways of passing on Tibetan Buddhism," Hua said.

"The title of Dalai Lama is conferred by the central government, which has hundreds of years of history. The (present) 14th Dalai Lama has ulterior motives, and is seeking to distort and negate history, which is damaging to the normal order of Tibetan Buddhism."

In 1995, after the Dalai Lama named a boy in Tibet as the reincarnation of the previous Panchen Lama, the second highest figure in Tibetan Buddhism, China put that boy under house arrest and installed another in his place.

Many Tibetans spurn the Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama as a fake.

Traditionally, high lamas, Buddhist priests, can take years to identify a child deemed to be a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, a search usually limited to Tibet.

Tibetans fear that China will use the issue of the Dalai Lama's religious succession to split Tibetan Buddhism, with one new Dalai Lama named by exiles and one by China after his death.

China says its rule has brought much needed development to poor and backward Tibet. Exiles and rights groups accuse China of failing to respect Tibet's unique religion and culture and of suppressing its people.

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Nick Macfie)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/10/us-china-tibet-idUSKBN0H50ST20140910?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: H.H. XIV Dalai Lama says he should be the Last Dalai Lam
Content:
krodha wrote:
Allegedly related to the fact that the Chinese government has announced that they will have sole authority over approval of the next Dalai Lama. So possibly a smart move on HHDL's part, he is clearly looking to thwart potential conflict which could arise as a result of controversy over who the authentic Dalai Lama is once the Chinese government has proclaimed a successor. China's govt. would no doubt love the controversy and contention which would result from two contending Dalai Lamas.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 3:53 AM
Title: H.H. XIV Dalai Lama says he should be the Last Dalai Lama
Content:
krodha wrote:
September 7th 2014:

The Dalai Lama has told a German newspaper that he should be the last Tibetan spiritual leader, ending a centuries-old religious tradition from his Himalayan homeland.

His comments to the Welt am Sonntag newspaper echo his previous statement that "the institution of the Dalai Lama has served its purpose", but were even more explicit.

"We had a Dalai Lama for almost five centuries. The 14th Dalai Lama now is very popular. Let us then finish with a popular Dalai Lama," he said.

"If a weak Dalai Lama comes along, then it will just disgrace the Dalai Lama," he added with a laugh, according to a transcript of the English language interview.

He also said: "Tibetan Buddhism is not dependent on one individual. We have a very good organisational structure with highly trained monks and scholars."

China has governed Tibet since 1951, a year after invading, and the Dalai Lama fled across the Himalayas to India after a failed 1959 uprising against Chinese rule.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2011 retired from political duties and has upgraded the role of prime minister of the Tibetan exile community.

But he is still the most powerful rallying point for Tibetans, both in exile and in their homeland, and remains the universally recognised face of the movement.

Asked by the German newspaper how much longer he may carry on his advocacy duties, the 79-year-old said: "The doctors say I could become 100 years old. But in my dreams I will die at the age of 113 years."

"I hope and pray that I may return to this world as long as sentient beings' suffering remains. I mean not in the same body, but with the same spirit and the same soul."

On the question of whether he may ever be able to return to Tibet, he said: "Yes, I am sure of that. China can no longer isolate itself, it must follow the global trend towards a democratic society."

http://news.yahoo.com/dalai-lama-says-no-successor-215550161.html


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 1:37 PM
Title: How Throma Practitioners Die: Death of Shiva Lodro Rinpoche
Content:
krodha wrote:
HOW T’HROMA PRACTITIONERS DIE

SEP 05 2014

Today we received a phone call from Nepal informing us of the unexpected death of Shiva Lodro Rinpoche. Shiva Rinpoche is the reincarnation of Golok Serta Rinpoche, a great T’hroma Chod practitioner and lineage holder of the T’ho-Luk, or Northern school of Dudjom Lingpa’ s T’hroma Chod – which comes from Degyal Rinpoche. Lama Dawa’s father was a student of Golok Serta Rinpoche and when Lama Dawa was a child, he and his family used to travel around like gypsies with Serta Rinpoche’s group. Lama Dawa tells many fantastic stories of Serta Rinpoche and the amazing Chod practices they used to do in the wilds of the Himalayas.

Shiva Rinpoche was recognized as the reincarnation of Golok Serta Rinpoche by HH Dudjom Rinpoche. He maintained a monastery and residence in Humla, a remote region of Nepal, where he had many students. He also lived in the Kathmandu valley and traveld a few times to the west, most recently to Russia, to teach.

He had been sick in the hospital in Kathmandu with liver disease. Apparently he knew he was going to die, and he told his attendants that he wanted to return to Yang Rig, in Humla, where his father (the second Degyal Rinpoche) passed away.

Yesterday, Sept. 4, on Guru Rinpoche day, he called his students to perform the Guru Tsog, then gave them extensive teachings and advice about their practice. Then he told them that this would be his last teaching to them as he was going to die. He told them that if they do good practice, they will die like this – with no pain or suffering, or any single belongings. He instructed them to leave his body for five days, then after that they could do whatever they like.

With that, he took off all his clothes. sat in meditation, then after two or three minutes, rainbow lights and spheres of light began to fill the room, and he entered into t’hug-dam. He remains there now, and we are told the whole valley is now filled with rainbows. Many people are starting to come from all over to witness this amazing event. His brothers, Tulku Pema Rigsal, and Gyewa Rinpoche and Sangye Rinpoche are arriving to begin the ceremonies. Now there is talk to leave his body for longer than the five days, and Lama Dawa fully expects his body to start shrinking. “This is how the T’hroma practitioners die,” he said when he heard the news.
Although it is so sad that he has left us at such a young age (49), it is also a great inspiration to the power of the blessings of the Dudjom lineage and for those who follow it’s path.

We look forward to hearing more news over the next week…….

http://saraswatibhawan.org/how-throma-practitioners-die/


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 4th, 2014 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: No live teacher no problem
Content:
krodha wrote:
Seems to be a reoccurring theme...

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=16905&start=180#p244257


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
krodha wrote:
Informative video on the origins of ISIS:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 2nd, 2014 at 10:49 AM
Title: Re: Kayas
Content:
Hieros Gamos said:
If possible to tell, could anyone clarify what

"sahajakaya"

and

"mahasukha prajnakaya"

signify?

krodha wrote:
Sahajakāya is from the Kālacakra tantra, and appears to be related to the Kālacakra interpretation of the svābhāvikakāya.

The only thing that came up on the mahāsukhaprajñākāya was a claim by Yogi C.M. Chen that the mahāsukhaprajñākāya is equivalent to the rainbow body [ja lus], although whether that is a substantiated assertion I have no idea. Yogi Chen also appears to claim that a Buddha has five kāya's and named the sahajakāya as the fourth... I'm not sure how much Yogi Chen's writings can be trusted. Perhaps someone else knows?

Sahajakāya is discussed here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yKrG6QdXtMgC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=sahajakaya&source=bl&ots=r3p1UwPI-e&sig=d-4wcrpE_f07F46eiOo8qr_c2aA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mCwFVMukNar1iwLIpIHABg&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sahajakaya&f=false

and here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=i_KOOn0BaCoC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=sahajakaya&source=bl&ots=FvGQs42nc4&sig=4CJbktyJIQbkeQhW2QW4zKdZE4I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mCwFVMukNar1iwLIpIHABg&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sahajakaya&f=false


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 2nd, 2014 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
"skyabs rje" literally means something like "lord of refuge". I'm not sure that it is what is being translated as "His Holiness" in the case of HH the DL.

krodha wrote:
Kyabjé (wyl. skyabs rje) is a mark of respect reserved for the seniormost lamas of the tradition, whose realization and powers are extraordinary. For example among today's Nyingmapa lamas it is used for the likes of Trulshik Rinpoche, Penor Rinpoche, Chatral Rinpoche, Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche and Minling Trichen Rinpoche. The term means lord (jé) of refuge (kyab), signifying someone who, on account of his or her extraordinary realization, has the capacity to protect us from the suffering of samsara and its causes, the disturbing emotions. It is sometimes rendered into English as 'His Holiness' or 'His Eminence'.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 2nd, 2014 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
narraboth said:
A story from the traditional Chinese version of 'brilliant moon'
(I have been told that it is not in the other language versions. The translator in Taiwan visited Namkhai Nyingpo rinpoche, a major student of kyabje Dilgo Khyentse, for some more stories about Kyabje rinpoche)

Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche was invited to give Dzogchen teaching to HH Dalai lama. One day, HH asked Kyabje rinpoche:
'It is also possible to understand Dzogchen by reading Dzogchen texts, I think?'
Kyabje rinpoche replied:
'What you said is ture. If one prays to guru and read Dzogchen text slowly at the same time, it is possible to understand Dzogchen this way.'

So HH did. At the night, HH had a dream of Kyabje Rinpoche. In the dream Kyabje Rinpoche looked at HH with eyes wide opened and pointed at HH.

Next day, HH reported to Kyabje Rinpoche the dream, also the 'understanding' he got, and Kyabje Rinpoche approved it.
Thus Kyabje Rinpoche became the uncommon root guru of HHDL.

krodha wrote:
At the same time this interaction with Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche most certainly was not HHDL's first encounter with Dzogpachenpo. Aside from being the Dalai Lama, he had already received pointing out instruction, the four empowerments etc., and as Malcolm has pointed out before...

Malcolm said:
There is a Dzogchen tantra which states "It is not necessary to hear it, obtaining the text is enough."

But this presumes that one has already been ripened by the four empowerments:

If this king of intimate instructions is given to improper recipients, both will be burned. 
May it be acquired buy those trained suitable recipients with good karma!
Through that may secret mantra remain for a long while!
May the darkness of the ignorance of migrating beings be dispelled!

M

krodha wrote:
Also, not that it really matters but 'His Holiness' is the english translation of skyabs rje. Which means this sentence:

"So HH did. At the night, HH had a dream of Kyabje Rinpoche. In the dream Kyabje Rinpoche looked at HH with eyes wide opened and pointed at HH."

Is the same as saying:

"So Kyabje did. At the night, Kyabje had a dream of Kyabje Rinpoche. In the dream Kyabje Rinpoche looked at Kyabje with eyes wide opened and pointed at Kyabje."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 1st, 2014 at 12:57 PM
Title: Re: Why do people believe the news?
Content:
M.G. said:
Hmmmm....
OK, moving away from the Middle East, what would you consider a conspiracy hidden in plain sight?

krodha wrote:
I'm not familiar with it enough to name specifics, I've just read that it allegedly occurs.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 1st, 2014 at 12:40 PM
Title: Re: Why do people believe the news?
Content:
M.G. said:
I could see a conspiracy where events simply went on and were unquestioned, but the Israel-Palestine conflict and the events of 9/11 are two of the most talked about, debated, researched, fought over subjects one could imagine.  If there were really a powerful shadowy conspiracy, I wouldn't expect constant academic and media debates, streams of publications, endless commentators and punditry opining, etc.

krodha wrote:
Yes I meant in general, not in reference to any specific events or circumstances.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 1st, 2014 at 12:09 PM
Title: Re: Why do people believe the news?
Content:
M.G. said:
The fact that Western media focusses so much on Israel is exactly how one knows there is no all-powerful Zionist conspiracy pulling the press strings. Any real conspiracy would keep things close to its heart very, very quiet

krodha wrote:
I'm not taking sides in the topic at hand, but regarding the idea that a real conspiracy would be very, very quiet; that may not necessarily be the case. Some claim that the tactic of "hidden in plain sight" is often employed in association with such endeavors.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 31st, 2014 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Which of these two is more accurate about buddhanature?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Buddha nature can definitely become obscured by delusion... that is what samsāra is.

To summarize, the basic nature of things, Samantabhadra's wisdom mind of great equality, pervades the whole of samsaric existence and nirvana's peace. It encompasses everything, yet sentient beings still fail to acknowledge this, their own nature, obscuring this fact from themselves. Hence they go through the illusory endless circle of samsara's three realms. Though they suffer in this way, their basic wakefulness, dharmakāya, never undergoes any change or transformation, increase or decrease. Even while beings experience the infernal suffering of the deepest hell, their buddha-nature's basic wakefulness remains unimpaired and vividly present. Their momentary experiences are merely the reflected images of suffering - the expressions of dependent origination that are the consequence of having engaged in unvirtuous actions - while in reality they have not separated from dharmakāya by as much as a hair's tip.

It is for this reason that under the dense veil of ignorance we only experience samsara's distorted, karmic displays. As the veil grows gradually thinner through familiarity with the pith instructions, the experience of basic wakefulness becomes increasingly clearer. Finally, when the obscuring factors are permanently eliminated, the kāyas and wisdoms, buddhafields and enlightened qualities that are all perfectly present within us become evident. The phrase 'awakening to enlightenment' is just a label for this and a buddhafield is not some faraway place that you must undergo an arduous journey to reach."
- Erik Pema Kunsang


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 10:44 AM
Title: Re: Why do people believe the news?
Content:
krodha wrote:
For the most part every major news outlet is clearly told what (and what not to) to report on. Hence why you can see the same narratives repeated from station to station. You'll see every station cover and sensationalize a certain trivial news story to take the attention away from other events that may be occurring at the same time, it's all b.s. best to take it with a grain of salt. There's without a doubt an interest in shaping public opinion, but this is nothing new.

Luckily nowadays in the age of information, thanks to the internet and what not, there is far more transparency and less dependency on those news sources.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Is Contemplation the same thing as Mindfulness?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has said if you are a practitioner and can enter the state of contemplation [tib. ting nge dzin, skt. samādhi] for even a few seconds you are doing well. And that the state of contemplation is precisely the state of Dzogchen, also called the state of tregchö (as someone else mentioned above).

Tsoknyi Rinpoche has shared sentiments to that same effect; that when one sits for a meditation session, in the context of Dzogchen that practitioner may sit for an hour or two hours and only truly meditate for a matter of seconds. He said this is because the meditation of Dzogchen is resting in those instances of non-conceptual prajñā which may only flash forth for mere seconds as beginners. So the point is to familiarize with those instances.

His father Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche describes contemplation (specifically the difference between the deliberate training of śamatha and the effortless state of contemplation) here:

The glimpse of recognizing mind-essence [sems nyid] that in the beginning lasted only for a few seconds gradually becomes half a minute, then a minute, then half an hour, then hours, until eventually it is uninterrupted throughout the whole day. You need that kind of training. I mention this because, if [you believe] the goal of the main training is to construct a state in which thoughts have subsided and which feels very clear and quiet, that is still a training in which a particular state is deliberately kept. Such a state is the outcome of a mental effort, a pursuit. Therefore it is neither the ultimate nor the original natural state. 

The naked essence of mind [sems nyid] is not known in shamatha, because the mind is occupied with abiding in stillness; it (mind essence) remains unseen. All one is doing is simply not following the movement of thought. But being deluded by thought movement is not the only delusion; one can also be deluded by abiding in quietude. The preoccupation with being calm blocks recognition of self-existing wakefulness and also blocks the knowing of the three kayas of the awakened state. This calm is simply one of no thought, of the attention subsiding in itself while still not knowing itself.

But deliberate mindfulness and śamatha practice are essential prerequisites to contemplation for most. Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche and Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche describe the contrived mindfulness of śamatha etc., as the "practitioner chasing the meditation", whereas the uncontrived state of contemplation is "the meditation chasing the practitioner".


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 10:42 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I think that Buddhism provides a particularly clear conceptual framework and corpus of methods to discover the natural state. However, I don't believe those conceptual frameworks to deal with our confusion are of themselves a necessary precursor to realization.

Jikan said:
Elsewhere on DharmaWheel, especially in the Dzogchen forum, I've seen members take a similar position:  it's not necessary for someone to identify as a Buddhist or be trained in Buddhist doctrine to accomplish the path.  How different is that claim from the one quoted above?

krodha wrote:
Those frameworks are necessary for those whose paths are gradual in nature. In the context of Dzogchen when it is stated that the aspirant needn't be versed in Buddhist tenets and principles, that only is the case because (i) Atiyoga is an experiential view which is not acquired through logic, and (ii) the relationship with the guru ensures that the practitioner is on the right path (the path following the experiential view the guru points out). So the Buddhist doctrine is only extraneous if those factors are present - in the context of the path itself.

This doesn't mean Dzogchen lacks a correct conceptual view, it simply means that in terms of the view and praxis: the irrelevancy of the enumerated view is contingent upon the presence of the unenumerated view and the guru.

For all of us who are here in this web forum, discussing, comparing and contrasting different systems, this is a completely different context and it is important to uphold the correct conceptual view.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: Karma in Buddhism
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
The quote of Manjusrimitra I did above gives me a different impression. Besides, I'm just talking about vision, the practices of Dzogchen go beyond.
[Tantra, Upadeshas and Karma]

In my perception Mahamudra and Dzogchen are esoteric version of sutric teachings thus Mahamudra is similar to the view of Madyamakha and Dzogchen is similar to the view of Yogacara. This is confirmed by the statement Manjushmitra::
”The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought. Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into. It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte (adikarmika). Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guruji.”. ⁵
Thus, the difference between the vision of the tradition of upadeshas and sutras is the importance of guru transmission in the first.

krodha wrote:
I do not see how this quotation from Mañjuśrīmitra states, alludes to, or necessarily leads to the conclusions that (i) Mahāmudrā is similar to Madhyamaka and (ii) Dzogpachenpo is similar to Yogācāra.

Although apparently Mañjuśrīmitra was somewhat of a proponent of presenting the Atiyoga view in the context of the Yogācārin view, as discussed by John Myrdhin Reynolds [in his Dzogchen, Chinese Buddhism and the Universal Mind: Dzogchen and Chinese Buddhism ]:

Moreover, in terms of content, it is quite clear that the early Dzogchen Movement of the eighth and ninth centuries did not teach the Chittamatra doctrine of the Yogacharins, even though it borrowed some of the terminology of the earlier school. But it understood these terms in a different manner than did the Yogacharins. The precepts of Dzogchen are found in the Dzogchen Tantras of Atiyoga and not in the Mahayana Sutras of the Third Turning of the Wheel of the Dharma, although later Lama scholars in Tibet noticed the existence of certain similarities in terminology between Dzogchen and Chittamatra. This may be due to the activities of the scholar Manjusrhimitra who wrote a book on Garab Dorje's teaching from the Yogachara perspective.

In the Bodhicittabhavana quotation you are citing, it begins:
Mañjuśrīmitra said:
The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought.

krodha wrote:
Which is a normal statement regarding the view of Dzogchen, and is even a common statement found in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras among others. I don't think such as statement is necessarily indicative of a view similar to Yogācāra, in fact you can see teachers touch on this same principle while referencing Madhyamaka as an appropriately supportive view in engendering this species of understanding.

The quote continues:
Mañjuśrīmitra said:
Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into. It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte (adikarmika).

krodha wrote:
This again is a common description of the Dzogchen view (naturally), and is found quite commonly in various Buddhist systems when discussing the view of the unenumerated ultimate.

Your citation ends with:
Mañjuśrīmitra said:
Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guruji.

krodha wrote:
Cintamayī-prajñā i.e. wisdom-knowledge acquired through reflection and studying scripture (whether the sūtras, tantras or other writings) is another common theme and important aspect of most every system, spanning every yāna. The upadeśa aspect of Vajrayāna on the other hand, along with the indispensable role of the guru (involving transmission in the form of empowerment or pointing out instructions) are of course a different story... both are undoubtably vital and defining aspects of the Secret Mantra that are not found in Sūtrayāna. However that does not draw any direct correlations between Atiyoga and Yogācāra, nor Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka.

The 5th footnote which is cited at the end of the quote you cited does mention Yogācāra in order to put the term 'vāsanā' into context. Although the author of that translation sort of spins into a bit of an ontologically influenced scientific explanation of vāsanā (I'm not sure why). He states:

"Manjusrimitra introduces the concept of Vasana into his text without prior comment, because he assumes that his reader is already familiar with Yogacara Theory. Vasana, here translated as vestigial-imprint, describes the information content of the resonant field proceeding from the first point of Creation. A given phenomena contains a set amount of information. To define the smallest possible amount of information we use the term 'bit.' We know that any given phenomena is made up, therefore, of bits of information. Every elementary particle, atom, and molecule registers bits of information. Every interaction between particles processes information by altering those bits; since the altered bit is distinct from its original bit, the available bits proliferate ceaselessly. Each bit is a 'trace' of information, or in other words, a vasana, a vestigial imprint. In modern physics the fundamental bits that make up the Universe are described as 'quantum-bits' or qubits - each containing within itself both alternatives (thesis and antithesis) to any bit of information. Information, or in other words the total number of qubits making up the Universe, is constantly proliferating and evolving, as the event horizon expands. The intrinsic information-processing nature of Existence necessarily generates complexity. Until the formation of atoms, virtually all information in the Universe existed at the level of elementary particles and the density of energy throughout was everywhere almost the same. Nevertheless even in the first billionth of a second the Universe as we presently understand it, must have been on the order of some 100 million billion billion billion billion billion bits. The present measurement of total information stored in the Universe at the present time is phenomenal: if (following the modern Margolus-Levitin theorem) we take the amount of energy present within the event horizon of the knowable Universe, multiply that by 4, and divide by Planck's constant, it is possible to estimate that over the 15 billion years since the first point of Creation, the Universe has now expanded its information content to some 100 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion quantum bits of information."

The above really seems like an unnecessary way of describing vāsanā; which is a behavioural tendency or karmic imprint which influences the present behaviour of a person. Obviously vāsanā in this context is more accurately related to the ripening of bījas present in the ālāyavijñāna (or bījavijñāna), rather than a representation of 'quantum-bits'.

Either way I'm not seeing these correlations [between (i) Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka, or (ii) Dzogpachenpo and Yogācāra] (in the theme of 'vision' or otherwise). If that is your opinion that is one thing, and you're of course entitled to that opinion, but I do not find evidence for that conclusion present in the information cited.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Samyag-dṛṣṭi [right view] is the first principle of the Noble Eightfold Path, which would naturally imply that it takes precedence.

Even in Vajrayāna, Atiyoga etc., samyag-dṛṣṭi is what transmissions and direct introduction ultimately represent. Except rather than an inferential view the guru seeks to experientially introduce the definitive view. The view [lta ba] introduced by the guru is 'right view' or 'correct view' [yang dag pa'i lta ba].

In both cases the path follows in the wake of the view.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Karma in Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Apart from Atiyoga adopting a few Yogācārin principles, I still do not agree that the two are as similar as you claim them to be.

Also, aside from the nature of their respective paths, and the presence or absence of the ālayavijñāna, the view of karma between the different yānas really isn't all that different.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Paul said:
Interestingly, in the Zhang Zhung Nyengyud lineage, the first master of the lineage was a deva called Lhabon Yongsu Dagpa and the second was a naga, Lubon Banam. Everyone after that was a human.

krodha wrote:
There's also the Twelve Dzogchen Buddhas [rdzogs chen ston pa bcu gnyis]

Twelve Teachers: Rigpa Wiki
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Twelve_teachers

Twelve Dzogchen Buddhas
http://www.himalayanart.org/search/set.cfm?setID=2694


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
Just to clarify.

I initiated this thread in order to gauge the extent to which those who populate the Dzogchen community on this forum cling to and insist upon rigid traditionalism,

krodha wrote:
It's more the case that the majority of us have no issue with relating to a conventional system and taking advice from those who have applied that system (including living transmission) who are realized because of it. Insistence grounded in clinging to views, traditional or not, can come in many forms... your move to reject the tradition being no different.

Concordiadiscordi said:
thereby denying all other possibilities and narrowing the scope of potential exchange between heterogeneous agents.

krodha wrote:
You are describing yourself, are you not?

Concordiadiscordi said:
I have noticed that many Tibetan Buddhists tend to be quite touchy about the guru-shishya subject, which is why I wanted to see If there is anybody here with a more liberal perspective on the matter, Also, it is just interesting to understand other perspectives - but I have had trouble gaining insight into the insistence upon the guru-shishya relationship as conceived within the Tibetan tradition, as I have never really received a thorough explanation of the matter; rather, I have only received reproaches for asking, as well as dogmatic statements which simply reiterate the vox populi of Tibetan traditionalism without actually explaining or substantiating it.

krodha wrote:
Well you certainly do not appear to approach the subject with an open mind, and also appear to take the rational high ground when addressing these principles. This is often due to western conditioning where one's 'modern' ways are considered to be the most refined and reasonable in comparison to other cultures and systems.

Even the way you term these principles (or statements in their defense) "dogmatic" speaks volumes about your frame of mind in this respect.

Concordiadiscordi said:
I find it very difficult to communicate with Tibetans for this very reason, as I typically end up running into rigid barriers.

krodha wrote:
And they probably sit around saying the same thing about their interaction with you. It takes a rigid barrier to run into rigid barriers.

Concordiadiscordi said:
I do not deny that many of these barriers may be my own, for which I apologise. I did approach this thread with my own prefabricated conviction, which itself has emerged throughout my own sojourn through the boundless ocean of Dharma. I may be wrong about everything, in which case I apologise once more for my ignorance.

krodha wrote:
Your ability to consider that this is a possibility on some level is a very positive trait that will serve you well.

Concordiadiscordi said:
One way or another, however, this thread has provided me with useful insight into the boundaries which occupy this space.

krodha wrote:
I would hardly call a self-deconstructing conventional methodology a "boundary".

Concordiadiscordi said:
Thus, I now know that certain questions will inevitably be rendered redundant due to lack of a receptive audience, whereas certain others might be tolerated.

krodha wrote:
Receptivity again, goes both ways.

Concordiadiscordi said:
This will aid in the skilful avoidance of similar instances in the future.

krodha wrote:
You should seek to grow and adapt in the way you are able to relate to these things, avoiding 'instances' like this (whatever that means) is not expanding (or dissolving) your own boundaries, but rather is fortifying them.

Concordiadiscordi said:
Finally, I have been generalising as to the typical opinions and inclinations of 'Tibetan Buddhists' in a very careless manner, so to those who may feel misrepresented by my generalisations, please be aware of the fact that I have no intention of condemning the Tibetan tradition in toto.

krodha wrote:
You can condemn all you like, no one takes offense here trust me. As I said the majority of people here are able to understand the benefits of a conventional system which has produced unbroken lineages of awakened individuals for centuries. If you want to play the game of 'my modern skepticism is the more refined route' then that is on you.

Concordiadiscordi said:
In fact, I have not set out to condemn anything at all, as I have only probed and pushed a little. Please do not mistake the admission of my frustrations with wholesale attacks... they are merely fallible admissions.

krodha wrote:
I feel the sooner you can drop the subtly patronizing and condescending narrative the sooner you won't have to preemptively apologize for what you yourself clearly perceive as some species of condemnation.

Concordiadiscordi said:
Knowing where the boundaries lie - this has been my intention.

krodha wrote:
The boundaries are your own mind.

Concordiadiscordi said:
Avoiding useless clashes with rigid boundaries in the future - this has been my reward.

Kind regards.

krodha wrote:
But you haven't addressed the root of where these boundaries arise from, therefore you are only reinforcing your own and putting off engaging with others in a productive manner where you might be able to learn something. You are limiting yourself, sadly under the guise of being the one who is free of limitations.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 3:27 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
krodha wrote:
At any rate, intimate instructions from a qualified guru are necessary and cannot be bypassed:

To exert yourself in study and so forth without attending a master and without having received the empowerments, you will have no result and your efforts will be wasted. Empowerment is the entrance to the Secret Mantra. To enter the Secret Mantra without the empowerments being conferred is pointless, since it will yield no result and your stream of being will be ruined.
- Padmasambhava

Unless we have such devotion for our kind teachers that we consider them as greater than the Buddha, we will not receive even a single portion of their blessings. Without genuinely receiving blessings, the tender shoots of experience and realization will not grow.
- Longchenpa

All spiritual attainments of the profound Secret Mantra arise from nowhere else but through reliance on the Lama. 
- Dudjom Rinpoche


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 12:31 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
Is not the very distinction between the relative/conventional and the absolute/ultimate to be surpassed? According to my understanding, they are 'not two, not even one.'

krodha wrote:
Only if you're resting in direct experiential knowledge of that nature. Otherwise you are in the relative condition.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 11:41 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
All things return to the one. To where does the one return?

We say, 'Our nature,' but who is it that thinks thus, and what is indicated thereby?

Could this ever be clarified by means of effort or reliance? Giving rise to a mind which abides nowhere, there is neither teacher nor Dharma on which to rely. Abandoning oneself, exertion is mere vanity. With all supports thoroughly exhausted, how can notions of realisation be contrived?

krodha wrote:
It isn't 'one' like a single ontological essence. Sāṃkhya Yoga for example posits an unconditioned, singular, transpersonal ultimate, as does Vedanta with its Brahman. The 'nature' spoken of in Dzogchen isn't like that, it is only 'one' in the sense that each phenomenon has that nature as a common characteristic, but each conventional phenomenon is partitioned and has its own nature. Meaning your nature is not my nature and vice versa. So it isn't like a 'one' or 'oneness' that things return to, it is an epistemic recognition and you either know that nature or you don't.

As Lopön Tenzin Namdak states:
If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View.

As for the rest of your questions, you should look into how conventions relate to ultimate truth. Conventionally, things like means, effort, reliance, mind, teacher, supports, realization etc., are valid. Ultimately, they are empty and therefore are unreal.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
krodha wrote:
Is "The Dharma" capitalized (as used in the Padmasambhava quote above) an honorific orthographical rendering of 'dharma' used to denote phenomena (collectively) in general?

Another translation of the same passage states:
Do not seek to cut the root of phenomena, cut the root of the mind. Because if you cut the root of the mind, by accomplishing one, you accomplish all.

Is "Dharma" [capitalized] synonymous with 'dharmas' or 'dharmins' [plural]?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Malcolm said:
"gcig shes kun grol"

Knowing one thing liberates all things.

dzogchungpa said:
What is this one thing?

krodha wrote:
Do not resolve the Dharma, resolve your mind.
To resolve your mind is to know the one which frees all.
Not to resolve your mind is to know all but lack the one. 
- Padmasambhava

A common notion in Atiyoga texts, but it is also found elsewhere... for example the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra states:

What is called "knowledge of all things" is the result of knowing one thing: the true nature of phenomena, which has the attribute of peace.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
krodha wrote:
It's a shame the notable hostility some Muslims may have towards Buddhism is merely a reaction to that 969 group from Myanmar (which may in fact be a political front disguised as a Buddhist radical group).


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 24th, 2014 at 6:31 AM
Title: ISIS Threatens to Destroy World's Largest Buddhist Temple
Content:
krodha wrote:
Islamic State (extremist group formerly known as ISIS) is threatening to destroy Borobudur Temple in Indonesia:

http://www.pangeatoday.com/isis-threatens-to-destroy-worlds-largest-buddhist-temple/?orderBy=popular


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 16th, 2014 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Ink, Buddhist Tattoos
Content:
krodha wrote:
I did a short lived tattoo apprenticeship for awhile (right around the time I became interested in the buddhadharma) and I remember a man came in for an appointment with my teacher one day, and the piece they were working on was Dza Rahula. I distinctly recall the bow and arrow, the nine heads, four arms and the eyes all over Rahula's body. It was a beautiful tattoo. About a month later I learned of Chögyal Namkhai Norbu's teachings.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Destruction and/or annihilation has nothing to do with emptiness, whatsoever.

Sherab Dorje said:
EVERYTHING has to do with emptiness.

krodha wrote:
Right you're making this statement in a different context though (and I agree with you).

My comment was regarding the context that queequeg alluded to where it appeared s/he was comparing emptiness to an utter annihilation or destruction, which it isn't.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
We are saying the same thing in principle. I just disagree that appearances can be liberating because it isn't the appearances themselves but the nature of one's knowledge of them [appearances] which either binds or liberates.

Sherab Dorje said:
You can't seperate them.  If there were no appearances, what would you have insight into???

krodha wrote:
Their inseparability isn't what ultimately counts, it is knowledge or ignorance of that inseparability that makes the difference. If you are ignorant of that inseparability then you do not know it, and appearances take on the guise of conditioned dharmins. So while it is true those dharmins are misconceptions (due to the fact that they are actually empty) if we are ignorant of their non-arising [dharmatā] then they do not appear to be empty.

There is no soteriological value to be found in the mere idea that appearances and emptiness are inseparable, the liberating factor is a direct unmediated recognition of that inseparability. Otherwise appearances appear to be real objects and entities.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Clarity or appearance divorced from insight into their emptiness (or non-arising) is just conditioned clarity appearing as afflicted mind and appearances misconstrued as conditioned objects/entities.

Sherab Dorje said:
Not that this statement actually makes any sense, but I'll take your word for it.

Going back to my original statement:  "Appearances can be liberatory too, if we see their true nature."

Quite clearly you are barking up the wrong tree (ie we don't disagree).

krodha wrote:
We are saying the same thing in principle. I just disagree that appearances can be liberating because it isn't the appearances themselves but the nature of one's knowledge of them [appearances] which either binds or liberates.

For instance from Tsoknyi Rinpoche:
Sometimes I say emptiness in the clarity and sometimes emptiness in the appearance. These mean exactly the same thing because emptiness is emptiness in each case and because the clarity part and the appearance part come down to the same meaning. Clarity is the knower and appearances are what it knows.

Now, when we do not know this emptiness and appearance we stay in duality and staying in duality we are confused. The definition of confusion is: "Not directly seeing the actuality of things."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Ignorance and negative actions.

Sherab Dorje said:
Well I am not going to chase your tail any longer.  I leave you to your ignorance and negative actions which are (according to you) independent of emptiness.

krodha wrote:
Ignorance [avidyā] is delusion about the nature of appearance because the non-arising of said appearance is unrecognized. The negative actions (or just action) [karma] which ensues while under the influence of ignorance then fortifies and sustains that ignorance.

So ignorance and karmic formation are said to be the mother and father of samsara.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
My point being that knowledge of appearance alone does not liberate, but knowledge of the emptiness of appearance does liberate.

Sherab Dorje said:
Please define "knowledge of appearance", you mean the dualistic process of perception?

krodha wrote:
Yes because clarity is what becomes conditioned.

Clarity or appearance divorced from insight into their emptiness (or non-arising) is just conditioned clarity appearing as afflicted mind and appearances misconstrued as conditioned objects/entities.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Because one will liberate you and the other will not.

Queequeg said:
Right. Opening Shiva's third eye is a wonderful liberation. Destruction is so cathartic.

krodha wrote:
Destruction and/or annihilation has nothing to do with emptiness, whatsoever.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Appearances can be liberatory too, if we see their true nature.

krodha wrote:
Right, which is their emptiness i.e. non-arising.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Because one will liberate you and the other will not.

Sherab Dorje said:
Emptiness does not liberate, it is just the way things exist.  It is neither liberatory nor enslaving.

krodha wrote:
There are only three doors to liberation, emptiness being one of them: (i) emptiness [śunyatā], (ii) absence of characteristics [alakṣana], (iii) absence of aspiration [apranidana].

My point being that knowledge of appearance alone does not liberate, but knowledge of the emptiness of appearance does liberate.

It is liberating from the standpoint of the individual, which is the point of the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: "Eternal" Buddha?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Emptiness and appearance are not seperate.

Queequeg said:
Indeed. But people make the mistake of emphasizing one over the other all the time.

krodha wrote:
Because one will liberate you and the other will not.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 1st, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Rainbow body attainments of non-buddhists
Content:
krodha wrote:
Important to differentiate: (i) "rainbow body" as the disappearance of the body, with (ii) "rainbow body" as knowing only wisdom display at the time of the result:

Malcolm said:
No, but I have heard (from ChNN among others) that the disappearance of the body is not necessarily a sign of the body of light.

Hindus also gain control over the four elements, also Arhats can gain control over the four elements. Gaining control over the four elements is mundane siddhi, it is not excellent siddhi, nor is it reserved for Vajrayana and Dzogchen people. However, if someone has not studied in detail, they might think that many mundane siddhis are profound. So yes, what I am telling you is that I do not consider the so called rainbow body to much more than a display of mundane siddhi to create faith.

I am glad you have faith in the teachings, but as I said, I do not derive my faith in the teachings through illusions and phantasmagoria.

N
KDL [Kunzang Dechen Lingpa] went though all four visions to the end. He told me this personally. Not only me, but others. He did realize rainbow body. Rainbow body, in Dzogchen, does not mean that your body disappears. This is a huge misconception... it is stupidly simple -- once you reach the end of the fourth vision, everything is a display of the five lights, as it is put in the classical text earth, rocks, mountains and cliffs vanish and instead one sees only the five pure lights.

Sometimes, your body vanishes. Mostly, it just shrinks after death. For example, Thangtong Gyalpo achieved rainbow body. His kudung is still shrinking. It exists in a small monastery in somewhere in Nepal. A Lama friend of mine knows where it is and has seen it.

In other words, rainbow body in essence is actually a realization.

N


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 27th, 2014 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: Dogen's quote: arhathood or buddhahood?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Arhats only have knowledge of "one-fold" emptiness, so they have full knowledge of the emptiness of self but lack (or have incomplete) insight into emptiness of phenomena.

zenman said:
The eighth bhūmi, the Immovable

The eighth level is called the "Immovable" because bodhisattvas overcome all afflictions regarding signs and their minds are always completely absorbed in the dharma. At this stage, an Arya Bodhisattva has attained realization equivalent to a full Theravada Arhat. At this level, a bodhisattva has achieved nirvana. According to Nargarjuna,
The eighth is the Immovable, the youthful stage,
    Through nonconceptuality he is immovable;
    And the spheres of his body, speech and mind's
    Activities are inconceivable

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumi_%28Buddhism%29#The_eighth_bh.C5.ABmi.2C_the_Immovable " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

krodha wrote:
Eighth bhūmi is the first pure bhūmi and means that individual's realization is irreversible (will not regress - even after rebirth). The kleśas are exhausted and root of samsara is severed, but there are still subtle knowledge obscurations present.

Apparently the Kagyus hold that sixth bhūmi marks arhathood.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 25th, 2014 at 8:46 AM
Title: Re: Dogen's quote: arhathood or buddhahood?
Content:
krodha wrote:
There is the traditional buddhahood actualized in Mahāyāna, then 13th bhūmi in Vajrayāna as the level of Vajradhara, and 16th bhūmi in Dzogpachenpo as uttarajñāna (as Malcolm has mentioned before).

Degrees of omniscience being what the extended bhūmis (12 - 16) are representative of. However buddhahood is achieved by each of them at the 11th bhūmi.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 25th, 2014 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: Dogen's quote: arhathood or buddhahood?
Content:
krodha wrote:
So "full buddhahood" is being defined as the full omniscience of the svābhāvikakāya... but really this is just a difference in degrees of omniscience because those who realize dharmakāya are also liberated.

It is just that the omniscience of those who fully realize the rūpakāya is greater. When it comes down to it buddhahood is actualized either way.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 25th, 2014 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: Dogen's quote: arhathood or buddhahood?
Content:
Jikan said:
According to Vajrayana.  Your mileage may vary in some Mahayana schools.

krodha wrote:
Curious which Mahāyāna schools are considered to provide limited mileage? I would agree that mileage varies when it comes to degrees of omniscience, but I'm unfamiliar with the mileage in general being in question.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 25th, 2014 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Dogen's quote: arhathood or buddhahood?
Content:
Emakirikiri said:
Vajrayana says that the realisation of common Mahayana is that of two-fold emptiness, equivalent to the 1st bhumi of a bodhisattva (with the 1st bhumi realisation of emptiness being equivalent of that of a buddha's, however the further up the bhumis you go the less obscurations you have until you reach zero obscurations aka samyaksambuddhahood or full Buddhahood, which is possible only through Vajrayana methods).

krodha wrote:
Common Mahāyāna also actualizes full buddhahood, just isn't as rapid as Vajrayāna and doesn't work with energy like Vajrayāna does.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 25th, 2014 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Dogen's quote: arhathood or buddhahood?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Arhats only have knowledge of "one-fold" emptiness, so they have full knowledge of the emptiness of self but lack (or have incomplete) insight into emptiness of phenomena.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 at 11:02 AM
Title: Re: On Nirvana
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Both books I recommended support a different view on Madhyamakha and Yogacara.  Which text and which source you are using as the basis for your argument?

krodha wrote:
Numerous texts, don't have them on hand at the moment.

Vajrasvapna said:
I think the big mistake of some Buddhist scholar is to believe that the teachings of Yogacara are contradictory to the teachings of Madhyamakha; but if this is true, for what reason we have Nagarjuna's collection of praises, an expression of the teachings of the third turned?

krodha wrote:
Not the same Nāgārjuna. But even then I don't see the text you are referencing as relating to Yogācāra.

Vajrasvapna said:
My opinion is that all Buddhist philosophies are incomplete and are not able to express the Buddha-nature, for it is simply beyond expression.

krodha wrote:
Yes every system agrees that the unenumerated ultimate is beyond expression.

Vajrasvapna said:
You supported the vision of Prasangika school. Despite the logic of reducing to absurdity is special, it takes the impression that the Buddha nature is equal to nothing;

krodha wrote:
Prasangika does not state that one's nature is 'nothing'. It simply says the ultimate is the non-arising of the relative.

Vajrasvapna said:
but if it is equal to nothing, for what reason so many positive qualities of enlightened beings arise?

krodha wrote:
Well positive qualities are merely conventional for one, and secondly those qualities can only occur in the first place because that nature lacks inherency.

Vajrasvapna said:
Then you have a contradiction.

krodha wrote:
There is no contradiction.

Vajrasvapna said:
Finally, Dzogchen is not comparative with the logical method of sutras, but the vision is no different.

krodha wrote:
Right, the praxis is different, the view of the ultimate is the same as that found in the prajñāpāramitā sūtras.

Vajrasvapna said:
As Manjusrimitra beautifully says:
"3. The Supreme Path of Direct Recognition
19 The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought.
20 Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into.
21 It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte(adikarmika).
22 Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher
and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guruji."

krodha wrote:
Which apart from the principle of direct introduction is really no different than how the ultimate view is portrayed in any system of the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 at 10:11 AM
Title: Re: Dorje Drollo and Simhamukha
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Very beautiful to speak, very difficult to practice. Even Guru Padmasambhava made ​​use of transformation method to protect themselves from attacks, for example. He turned into Simhamukha against a group of hateful Hindu scholars who had been defeated in debate.

As stated by Manjusrimitra.
8. The Validity of Contemplating Oneself as Divine
124 The World-Teacher has taught: "The use of an authentic indicative Symbolism (samketa) is also [a
valid way to] Enlightenment."
125 That [spoken of] here refers to techniques for the generation (utpatti) and meditation
(bhavana) of the Enlightened-mind [through symbolic procedures].
126 Having applied the three seals (mudra) which are signifiers [of Enlightenment], and stabilized the
three Contemplations (tri-samadhi)
127 then through the practice of reciting the Heart Mantra one generates the reality of the Mahamudra of
Mind-in-itself. http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library/texts/cultivation-of-enlightened-mind.htm#fifteen

krodha wrote:
Guru Rinpoche emanated as Senge Dradog against the tīrthikas, not Senge Dogma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: On Nirvana
Content:
krodha wrote:
Aside from adopting a few tenets from Yogācāra you really will not find very many teachers asserting that the view of Dzogchen and Yogācāra are agreeable. You will however see many masters advocate for the similarities in view between Dzogchen and Prasanga Madhyamaka... even Bönpo lamas go with Prasangika Madhyamaka as a proper equivalent in the context of fundamental view when it comes to Dzogpachenpo.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Clouded perception
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Why is your quaint Bed & Breakfast better than Hilbert's Hotel?

dzogchungpa said:
Because no matter how many guests check in, it's always empty.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Clouded perception
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Maybe you two should get a room.


BTW, you never asked me why it's better than Hilbert's Hotel.

krodha wrote:
Why is your quaint Bed & Breakfast better than Hilbert's Hotel?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: On Nirvana
Content:
plwk said:
What's the Mahayana perspective(s) on this?

Vajrasvapna said:
Here the Mahayana view:
"Thus, bodhisattvas do not reach or attain nirvana but overcome all delusions, including those that concern the ultimate. goal of nirvana, namely, views that see nirvana as either permanent or not permanent, pleasurable or not pleasurable, self-existent or not selfexistent, pure or not pure. Nirvana is simply the final delusion.[...]
"Another common derivation was to understand nirvana as a combination of the negative prefix nir and the root vri, «to
cover," «to restrain," or "to obstruct." This is most likely the sense understood here, with nir-vana referring to «no walls of the mind," as the word for «walls," avarana, is also derived from vri. Thus, not only do bodhisattvas see through delusions of existence and non-existence, they see through delusions of having stepped past all such delusions.[...]
Ching-mai says, "This explains the liberation door of no desire. Once one realizes dharmas have no nature, and they aren't blocked outside and have no fears inside, they come to know that dharmas are simply delusions, like dreams, and are false and not real. Thus, they see through them and don't give rise to desires." The Heart Sutra - Red Pine

Here the Madhyamaka view:
"The nineteenth verse describes how samsara and nirvana are actually undifferentiable:
  Samsara is not the slightest bit different from nirvana.
  Nirvana is not the slightest bit different from samsara.
From the perspective of precise knowledge analyzing the nature of genuine reality, once the true existence of nirvana is refuted, then one realizes that there is no samsara that is even the slightest bit different from nirvana, and no nirvana that is even the slightest bit different from samsara. In short, samsara and nirvana are of the nature of equality, because both have a nature beyond all conceptual fabrications about what it might be, and because both in their true nature are originally pure.
As the Fifth Karmapa Deshin Shekpa states:
  Whatever is the suchness of samsara, that is nirvana." The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way - Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso

Here the Dzogchen view, similar to the Yogacara view:
"Ho! Everything - appearance and existence, samsara and nirvana, has a single ground, yet two paths and two fruitions, and magically displays as awareness or unawareness.
Through Kuntuzangpo's prayer, may all beings become Buddhas, completely perfected in the abode of the dharmadhatu. The ground of all is uncompounded, and the self-arising great expanse, beyond expression, has neither the name samsara nor nirvana. Realizing just this you are a Buddha; not realizing this you are a being wandering in samsara." The Prayer of Kuntuzangpo

krodha wrote:
Of course there are certian Yogācāra tenets that Dzogchen implements in its system such as eight consciousness model, but when it comes down to the view in principle one can also say that Dzogpachenpo closely resembles the Madhyamaka view (not in praxis, but in principle).

The two quotes you posted above for Madhyamaka and Dzogchen are not all that different since the "ground" (or rather, 'basis') which is mentioned in the Dzogchen quote is original purity... a principle which is also referenced in the Madhyamaka quote: "...both in their true nature are originally pure."


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Clouded perception
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Maybe you two should get a room.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 21st, 2014 at 8:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & rainbow body
Content:
Fa Dao said:
kind of amazing that so many have achieved rainbow body with Longde in light of what was written above...

krodha wrote:
That's sort of the name of the game though when it comes to the triumphalist narratives associated with Atiyoga. In the context of comparing itself to other systems, the other yānas are marginalized. Even within itself concerning the three series you'll sometimes see klong sde presented as superior to sems sde, and then man ngag sde as superior over klong sde. Then within man ngag sde you see yang ti presented as superior to spyi ti, and spyi ti as superior to ati, etc... but that is all only really so from within the context of defining specific aspects of the path in relation to other methods through comparison and contrast.

Just as you see distinctions and differences highlighted, in certain instances you'll also see every yāna advocated for as valid and that same validity asserted for every series, cycle etc., so context is everything. The superior path or method is different for everyone because the superior method is always going to be the one that works for the individual concerned.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 20th, 2014 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Rainbow body question
Content:
Fa Dao said:
sorry if am am a little dense..just want to make sure I understand you correctly..this is serious shit, ya know?
3rd level=Awakened person=you just Know?

krodha wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=1154&start=480#p33601


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 19th, 2014 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Diet in relation to Rainbow Body
Content:
krodha wrote:
Yogis of that caliber are most likely using the elements for sustenance.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 17th, 2014 at 1:21 PM
Title: Re: Alayavijnana by Schmithausen available
Content:
krodha wrote:
Looks like Schmithausen published a new monograph this year: The Genesis of Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda: Responses and Reflections

Schmithausen, Lambert:
The Genesis of Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda : Responses and Reflections / Lambert Schmithausen. - Tokyo : The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies, 2014. - 740 S. - (Kasuga lectures series ; 1)
ISBN 978-4-906267-71-2
YEN 2400,00
DDC: 294.342042

http://www.indologica.de/drupal/?q=node/3188


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 16th, 2014 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Complete Togal Instruction in Unrestricted New Book
Content:
alpha said:
Can you provide some evidence that there are people whose paths were destroyed by them ?

krodha wrote:
It can happen in general, which is of course why you see statements from Padmasambhava such as this:

Having an unexamined teacher is like jumping into an abyss;
Having an unexamined student is like drinking poison.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 14th, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Title: Re: Are Karma and Rebirth Real?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Longchenpa also discusses this type of mistaken view. Pointing out the irony it implies. He says those who assert that principles such as karma, rebirth, compassion, merits etc., are inferior and will not lead to liberation, while simultaneously advocating for a so-called superior, simplified view (which does not require said principles), are actually the ones with the most inferior view of all.

smcj said:
If you could cite your source for where Longchenpa said this you'd be doing a lot of people a big favor.

krodha wrote:
Some say: "Cause and effect, compassion and merits are the dharma for ordinary people, and it will not lead to enlightenment. O great yogis! You should meditate upon the ultimate meaning, effortless as space."

These kinds of statements are the views of the utmost nihilism, they have entered the path of the most inferior. It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause.
- Longchenpa | rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso

He also says:

Some foolish and arrogant people who do not know the (various) meanings of the Dharma say, "There is no karma and no effects of karma. In suchness there is nothing. It is like space;" and they abandon virtuous deeds and indulge in evil deeds. They say, "Beings are self-appearance like a dream. They do not exist as an external factor. So even killing is not an evil deed, since they are like a piece of wood." Those are nihilists and not followers of the Dharma. The Subāhu-sūtra says, 

Some say, "There is no karma and no effect of karma. The (karma theory) is taught (by the Buddha) to lead the simple-minded people," and they live with hosts of non-virtuous deeds. You should know that they are not followers of this Dharma but are boasting. They are based on the path of atheists and are deceived by māras.

Both from Tulku Thondup's "The Practice of Dzogchen"


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 14th, 2014 at 10:45 AM
Title: Re: Are Karma and Rebirth Real?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
And I think that this results in a mistake that is often made  - the idea that the higher truths are really simple and there for all to see without need to believe anything such as 'rebirth' or to accept the basic truths of the Buddhist path. It is the mistake of those who think that rejecting the basic teachings is the same as going beyond the basic teachings, because they are insufficiently perceptive to grasp the difference.

krodha wrote:
Longchenpa also discusses this type of mistaken view. Pointing out the irony it implies. He says those who assert that principles such as karma, rebirth, compassion, merits etc., are inferior and will not lead to liberation, while simultaneously advocating for a so-called superior, simplified view (which does not require said principles), are actually the ones with the most inferior view of all.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 14th, 2014 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & rainbow body
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
No need to abandon, and no need to create either. If you have recognition and confidence in the non-abiding nature then you just rest in that, and everything accomplishes itself. If you are aspiring for that non-abiding state, then you do not have deep enough recognition or confidence (they really go hand in hand) to really practice "Dzogchen proper" which is totally beyond reliance on any conventional mode of thought or conceptualization regarding the appearances and manifestations that happen in ones field of awareness, and this includes any reliance upon an aspiration or intention to become liberated, since in the ultimate nature such an intention or aspiration, or even such a thought is literally not needed.

The problem with calling something "Dzogchen proper" is that there is at least three classifications of Dzogchen, space, mind and pith instructions. Each has a slightly different view and emphasis on different points of practice, experience, and so forth.

krodha wrote:
"Dzogchen proper", meaning; the unfabricated and direct, experiential view of dharmatā.

In the ultimate nature, intention and aspiration are inapplicable, but most are not able to rest in that nature continuously. Even my teacher Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche says he is not in the state of contemplation at all times, and has said when you are not in the state of contemplation then you are in the relative condition, and relative things apply to you.

So there is two sides to this for practitioners on the path; when you are resting in the view of uncontrived dharmatā then of course you are totally beyond concepts and require nothing, the view guides the conduct (which being inseparable, are perfectly balanced) and that is that. On the other hand, during post-equipoise (which is assuming one has genuine recognition in the first place, otherwise 'post-equipoise' does not apply for there is no initial equipoise to speak of), conduct must support the view. For one who has just entered the actual path, instances of post-equipoise will take up the majority of their time. As familiarization deepens and instances of equipoise are extended, then the need for contrived conduct will decrease. When it gets to the point that equipoise and post-equipoise are blended, then "everything accomplishes itself"... however on the outset this is not the case.

Regarding the classifications: like you mentioned, aspects of the three classifications will cater to different facets of that single view, but at the same time there are aspects of each class which can be considered to be complete paths in themselves as well. Either way, the view [lta ba] is the view... the system is a means to recognize the view, gain confidence in the view, and continue in the view.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 13th, 2014 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: On Nirvana
Content:
Andrew108 said:
This is from a commentary on the Kunjed Gyalpo. So this is coming from a Dzogchen POV.

krodha wrote:
That quote isn't saying anything to the contrary.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 13th, 2014 at 4:57 PM
Title: Re: On Nirvana
Content:
krodha wrote:
Energy is likewise merely conventional.

'Sensory appearances, moreover, arise naturally due to the dynamic energy [rtsal] of awareness [rig pa], and so their nature is described in a purely symbolic way as one of interdependent connection [dependent origination]. Even in the very moment that things seem to arise due to that dynamic energy they do not do so without being subject to extremes or divisions - with no question of whether or not something arises - and even 'dynamic energy' is just a symbolic term, with no finite essence whatsoever. So within the context [dharmatā] that is never subject to transition or change, nothing strays in the slightest from awakened mind.'

Even the statement that things arise as samsara and nirvana due to the dynamic energy [rtsal] of awareness [rig pa] is merely conventional, for in essence nothing has ever existed as anything in the slightest - nothing being distinct in itself as the process of samsara or nirvana arising, or as some 'thing' that arises."
- chos dbyings rin po che'i mdzod ces bya ba'i 'grel pa


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 13th, 2014 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & rainbow body
Content:
krodha wrote:
The body is very important in Dzogchen, maintaining the health and integrity of ones channels and a good circulation of winds are good things to be mindful of.

Apart from the anatomical aspects (of the body) that some Dzogchen principles are related to, health in general is if course important, a healthy body means a longer life, and a longer life means more time for practice.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 13th, 2014 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & rainbow body
Content:
ZOOM said:
So could anyone explain to me why Dzogchen training should need pranayama or any other kind of winds training to lead to the goal of enlightenment & rainbow body? Or is it simply a wrong claim?

According to Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, entering the Natural State of mind and staying in it is all that is necessary to attain ultimately rainbow body. If that is true, why wasting time with training in the channels with the winds etc.?

krodha wrote:
Depends on the individual. In the ultimate sense, and ideally one would not need secondary supports to maintain knowledge of their nature. But we're all different, some may need some prānayāma to help support their practice, another person may not and will find a different method which helps them rest in their nature.

When it comes to methods and resting in the view, the method that works is the one that works, no need to limit oneself and reject prānayāma, and no reason to cling to prānayāma and take it to be a sole means. I think you'll find that most Dzogchen teachers recommend some tsa lung as a secondary practice and support for the main view.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 13th, 2014 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & rainbow body
Content:
krodha wrote:
There is a thread in here somewhere dedicated to women who attained rainbow body. I can't pull it up at the moment but if you do a search you'll find it.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 13th, 2014 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & rainbow body
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Dzogchen attitude is quite unique. Very special. The idea of wanting to have rainbow body or wanting to achieve enlightenment doesn't fit.

ZOOM said:
What you are implying seems completely absurd to me.
For what reason in your opinion are all those people practicing Dzogchen who finally succeed in attaining rainbow body?

krodha wrote:
Andrew isn't fully understanding the context in which statements of that nature are found. It isn't that Dzogchen champions an absence of aspiration in relation to liberation, but how that aspiration is addressed in itself is different when it comes to Dzogpachenpo.

The view of Dzogchen proper is unfabricated and free of mind, so assertions which convey that desiring liberation, or working towards liberation in a solely causal setting, are 'delusional' is really just stating that these attitudes relate to the mind. In the sense that mind mistakes itself as a subject which relates to objects and therefore mind objectifies awakening as something it can produce or acquire via causal means.

Dzogchen is criticizing this type of approach, but is not saying one should abandon an aspiration for liberation.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 13th, 2014 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Free Will
Content:
Motova said:
From the Buddhist perspective, what is free will?

krodha wrote:
Some info in this thread:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=7753


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 12th, 2014 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: On Nirvana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Maybe you two should get a room.

krodha wrote:
Wow, first the monktastic flyboy and now Andrew108... I'm puttin' in work at Dzogchungpa's Bed and Breakfast!


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 12th, 2014 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: On Nirvana
Content:
Andrew108 said:
But does this mean that it has no existence?

krodha wrote:
It sure does.

Andrew108 said:
Baselessness does exist. It is a very natural part of experience.

krodha wrote:
Not at all.

Andrew108 said:
It's apart of how reality is.

krodha wrote:
Luckily there is no 'reality' apart from a nominal title, otherwise nirvana would be an impossibility.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 12th, 2014 at 12:14 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Dream Yoga
Content:
VinceField said:
...many Buddhist practitioners seem to believe that the essence of the nature and purpose of these nighttime dream yoga/lucid dreaming experiences is contradictory to the Dhamma.

krodha wrote:
Interesting, where did you encounter these practitioners?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 12th, 2014 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: On Nirvana
Content:
krodha wrote:
Technically nirvana isn't experienced in the first place, so the logic which ensues based on that initial premise is flawed to begin with...

Malcolm said:
Aryadeva clearly states in 400 Verses:

[Since] there are no aggregates in nirvana, 
a person cannot possibly be [in nirvana].

Candrakirti comments on this:

If there are aggregates in nirvana, there is also a person. At that time, because they exist [i.e. aggregates and persons], in contradiction with sūtra there will be a support that turns into nirvana, and samsara cannot be transcended.

krodha wrote:
Nāgārjuna's examination of the Tathāgata and Nirvana in his MMK further demonstrate how the initial premise is flawed.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 10th, 2014 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth....how does it happen?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Do you believe in distance? That for example it takes light about 8 minutes to get from the surface of the sun to the earth?

krodha wrote:
I believe that one's apparent perceptions can be conditioned by conventional constructs to create the appearance of a relative condition which seems to uphold the principles it allegedly consists of.

However are those principles, such as distance and so on valid beyond the pale of one's relative experience? No, since they do not withstand investigation or proper scrutiny, and are revealed to be unreal from the standpoint of wisdom.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 10th, 2014 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Questions about meditation-Please explain what's happeni
Content:
daverupa said:
Research the terms 'tinnitus' and 'rigors'/'hot flash' and 'phosphenes' and see if these sorts of phenomenological events describe the bulk of your symptoms.

krodha wrote:
Though these explanations would be placing the experience in the context of how materialist science explains this type of phenomena. The point of meditation in general is to work towards freeing oneself from the rigidity of such constructs (which isn't to say we should throw all caution to the wind and ignore relative physical ailments, for if we are truly afflicted with something we should of course seek medical attention).

When it comes to these subtle meditational experiences, turning to the modern physicalist-materialist paradigm to identify and place them into neat little boxes is (i) grasping at those experiences, and (ii) simply breathing life into the very conditioned world views that the buddhadharma is aiming to reveal as ultimately unreal abstraction.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 10th, 2014 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth....how does it happen?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Can you cite where that text is, exactly? Where are you getting the phrase 'objective condition'?

krodha wrote:
The 'objective condition' thing is a notion that Andrew evokes quite often. Buddhism has no issue with an objective condition in a conventional or relative sense, but Andrew means an actual objective condition... sort of a byproduct of the physicalist materialism (or 'naturalism' as he perfers) he is enamored with.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 10th, 2014 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Questions about meditation-Please explain what's happeni
Content:
kirtu said:
nimitta is different than what was described.

Kirt

krodha wrote:
Perhaps, I am admittedly unfamiliar with jhanas and nimittas... though chakawhirl's description sounds a lot like it:

chakawhirl said:
I started meditation again a few days back and this time instead of the lights thing that i used to feel earlier, sometimes when i really became relaxed and was able to sit for a longer duration,i felt a really calm feeling that came over me and though my eyes were closed, there was a subtle light that i felt or saw. It wasn't too bright but it was there.

krodha wrote:
From Ajahn Brahm:
Nimitta, in the context used here, refers to the beautiful "lights" that appear in the mind. I would point out, though, that the nimittas are not visual objects, in that they are not seen through the sense of sight. At this stage of the meditation, the sense of sight is not operating. The nimittas are pure mental objects, known by the mind sense. However, they are commonly perceived as lights...

SUITABLE NIMITTA AND USELESS NIMITTA

It is very helpful to cultivate nimitta of the sort perceived as a light. These "light nimittas" are the best vehicle for transporting the meditator into the Jhanas. However, it is just possible, but rarely done, to enter a Jhana by using "feeling nimittas" instead. By this I mean that one sees no lights in the mind, instead one experiences a feeling of bliss in the mind. It is important to note that the sense of touch has been transcended and such a "feeling" of bliss is experienced completely by the mind sense. It is a pure mental object again, but perceived as relating closely to a physical feeling of bliss. This is a bona-fide nimitta. But it is much more difficult to work with such as a nimitta to gain access to Jhana, though it is not impossible. For these reasons, it is recommended to cultivate the light nimitta if one aspires for the Jhana.

There are some visual nimittas that are of no use on the path into Jhana. It is helpful to know these "useless" nimitta so that one will waste no time with them.

Visions: Sometimes whole scenes can appear clearly in the mind. There might be landscapes, buildings and people. They may appear familiar or strange. It might be fascinating to watch such visions, but they are of little use. Moreover, they are meaningless and one should certainly not take them as some revelation of truth! Experience shows that visions arising at this stage are notoriously deceptive and completely untrustworthy. If one likes to waste time, one can linger on them a while. But the recommended thing to do is to remove all interest and go back to the beautiful breath. Such complex nimitta are merely a reflection of an overcomplicated mind. The mind should have been calmed into simplicity much more effectively before letting go of the breath. When one sustains the attention on the beautiful breath, uninterrupted for long periods of time, then one is training in simplicity. Then when the breath disappears, a simple unified nimitta arises, one that is suitable for progress.

The Firework Nimitta: A less elaborate nimitta, which is still overcomplicated, can be called the "firework nimitta." As the name suggests, this consists of many bursts of light coming and going, never lasting long and exhibiting much movement. There may be several bursts of light at the same time, even of different colors. Again, this firework nimitta is a sign that the mind is still too complicated and very unstable. If one wants, one can enjoy the sideshow for a short time, but one should not waste too much time there. One should ignore all the razzele-dazzele of the firework nimitta, return to the breath, and develop more one-pointedness and calm.

The Shy Nimitta: The next type of nimitta can be called the "shy nimitta," a single pure light that flashes up quickly and then disappears. After a few moments, it flashes up again. Each time, it lasts only a second or two. Such a nimitta is much more encouraging. Its simplicity shows that the mind is one-pointed. Its power is a sign that pitisukha is strong. But its inability to remain after breaking through into consciousness shows that the level of calm is not quite enough. In such a situation, one need not return to the beautiful breath yet. Instead, one patiently waits, developing more calm, allowing the mind to become more receptive to the very shy nimitta. As will be explained at greater length later, this nimitta disappears because the mind overreacts to its arrival, usually with excitement or fear. By establishing more solid calm and having the confidence to not react at all, the shy nimitta returns and stays longer each time. Soon, such a nimitta loses its shyness and, feeling accepted within the mind's calmness, remains a long time. One should attempt this approach first; But if the nimitta continues being "shy," with no indication that it is remaining longer, then one should return to the beautiful breath and ignore the shy nimitta. When one has built more tranquility of mind with the beautiful breath, then one can return to the shy nimitta to see if it will establish itself this time. 

The Point Nimitta: Another type of nimitta is the "point nimitta," a simple and powerful light, but ever so small, which persists many seconds. This nimitta can be very useful. It shows that one-pointedness is excellent, calm is sufficient, but pitisukha is still a bit lacking. However, all one needs to. do is gently look deeper into the point nimitta, letting mindfulness zero in, then it appears as if one's awareness comes closer to this nimitta and its size starts to increase. As it expands a little, one should keep one's focus on the center, not on the edges, nor beyond the edges. By maintaining the mind's focus sharply on the center of the point nimitta, it increases power, it grows in pitisukha. Soon the nimitta unfolds into the best nimitta of all. 

The Best Nimitta: The best nimitta of all, that which is the most suitable for Jhanas, begins as being similar to the full moon at midnight in a sky free of clouds. It rises unhurried when the beautiful breath softly disappears. It takes three or four seconds to establish its presence and settle down, remaining still and very beautiful before the mind's eye. As it remains without effort it grows brighter, more luminous. Soon it appears brighter than the sun at midday, radiating bliss. It becomes, by far, the most beautiful thing one has ever seen. Its beauty and power will often feel more than one can bear. One wonders whether one can take so much bliss of such extreme power. But one can. There's no limit to the bliss one can feel. The nimitta explodes, drowning one in even more bliss, or one dives into the center of the radiating ecstasy. If one remains there, it is Jhana.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ajahn_Brahm_The_Jhanas.htm#PART


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 10th, 2014 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Questions about meditation-Please explain what's happeni
Content:
krodha wrote:
These types of experiences occur with meditation. Your friend was right, the best thing is to just keep with the practice and do not grasp at the experiences, otherwise they can potentially become a distraction. If you feel kinesthetic or tactile energetic movement in the body, subtle pressure in the head or elsewhere, visual phenomena like lights or even hallucinations, even strange auditory phenomena such as the sound you mentioned... these things are normal. All of that phenomena is called 'nyam' in Tibetan, they are just passing meditational experiences.

Some traditions refer to the lights you are seeing with closed eyes (you can also meditate with your eyes open, or slightly open, just FYI) as 'nmitta'. If you research the jhanas (or dhyanas) you will find that nmittas are an integral part of the jhanic strata.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 at 3:35 PM
Title: Re: Are these the warning signs of a cult?
Content:
WonderingAloud said:
What about other Buddhist 'schools' is there an implied focus SOLELY on the ONE person's teachings and writings?

krodha wrote:
Not usually... most other teachers and communities explore the teachings of various key adepts of the system. Granted the guru is always going to be the medium through which teachings are given, and rightly so, but most teachers will not attempt to monopolize your relationship with the Buddhist teachings by rendering themselves the sole conduit for their delivery and reception in every way.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 at 1:59 PM
Title: Re: Are these the warning signs of a cult?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Your concern is warranted. Many of the 'negatives' you listed are red flags without a doubt... definitely out of the ordinary when it comes to the general on-goings usually associated with sanghas.

There are a few Buddhist cults out there, and there are sites which list those groups; have you tried to see if your teacher/community is listed?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: still new...questions on mindstream
Content:
Simon E. said:
I have very good reason to suspect that they can and do.

krodha wrote:
Some definitely can.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
It's funny because it's true.

krodha wrote:
Though if my mouth not shutting is supposed to be a reference to my frequency in posting, the numbers show that your mouth is running far more frequently than mine... but let's not let that contradiction take away from your laugh out loud display of comedic genius.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:
Mkoll said:
And no offense intended to you ASTNS or anyone else. Just thought that was funny.

krodha wrote:
None taken my friend.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 5:09 PM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:
monktastic said:
Can you do that? Just for me?

krodha wrote:
Anything for you monktastic, and be sure to let me know if I can walk on egg shells around any of your other pet peeves while I'm at it.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 4:45 PM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:
monktastic said:
Well, YMMV. It was more than a few minutes I got to spend with him. As I said, he was very clear when he expressed that one-pointedly supplicating this seemingly endless source of goodness is a sure-fire way to realize the nature of mind.

krodha wrote:
Wonderful.

monktastic said:
If you have different instructions, that is fine.

krodha wrote:
As a matter of fact, I do.

monktastic said:
But I'll be honest, I am tiring of your explanations when none was requested.

krodha wrote:
This is an Internet forum, monktastic, receiving unrequested opinions, explanations, insights, anecdotes and such comes with the territory. If you cannot handle that then perhaps some personal introspection is in order. Or better yet, you could stand on the shore and attempt to fight the waves back as they roll in, the two activities are equal in their futility.

monktastic said:
Like I have asked more than a few times in the past Kyle, please, please, please stop trying to teach me / us.

krodha wrote:
I am no authority and would not be pompous enough to present myself as one. If anything you seem to be the one who is reoccurringly interested in teaching me what I should and should not be saying or doing. But I am polite about it and will continue to be.

monktastic said:
Above all else, do not tell me what "devotion is," especially when I'm sharing the words of my guru.

krodha wrote:
I wasn't aware sharing the insights of one's guru is a sole privilege that belongs to you.

monktastic said:
You have no idea how dangerous such a statement can be.

krodha wrote:
Well, we cannot all be as well trained as you in wielding that sword, though it would be wonderful if we were.

monktastic said:
And do not tell me "well I wasn't trying to tell you what devotion really is."

krodha wrote:
I wouldn't dream of it.

monktastic said:
Read your words again and again if you have to.

krodha wrote:
I can assure you I don't have to.

monktastic said:
I am sorry if this comes across as harsh.

krodha wrote:
"Harsh" would not be the word that comes to mind.

monktastic said:
I do not mean it to be.

krodha wrote:
Well that is good, you are very kind.

monktastic said:
If you really think I am just completely misunderstanding my guru, please preface your words with "well I was taught...." Can you do that just for my sake?

krodha wrote:
I should not have to preface my opinion with what should be a given. In the future, just know damn well that I am sharing what I have been taught, as it is thoroughly understood that you are doing the same.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:
monktastic said:
Perhaps la-la land for you. For me, the meaning is clear: supplicating and surrendering to the "all-good non-thing" that my friend was taught to call "god" is precisely the practice that DPR claims will result in realization of the natural state.

krodha wrote:
Right, except the true meaning of 'supplicating' the guru, the 'all-good' i.e. Samantabhadra (or Vajradhara, Vajrasattva etc.) in the context of the buddhadharma means to recognize and rest in the direct knowledge of that inborn nature. Devotion is one's capacity for maintaining a keen interest in the teachings. Not supplicating to a God-like non-thing.

Opening and closing prayers, guru yoga, aspiration and bodhicitta... beseeching the retinues of Buddhas, bodhisattvas, vidyādharas, dharmapālas, etc., to bless myself and innumerable sentient beings is a part of my own practice as well, however it is never taken as truly supplicating to some 'thing'. It is the aspiration, intention and so on which is the most important.

There is also value in praying. For example I have heard Kunzang Dechen Lingpa urge his students who lacked the capacity to understand certain principles of the teaching to pray to him, visualize him and supplicate to him with the intention of increasing their respective capacities in this sense. And he said that after some time these same students were able to easily understand the principles they previously struggled with.

So there is immense value in that type of activity, however supplicating to an 'all-good non-thing' in the context of your friend's tradition could easily err into a counterproductive view or activity if approached the wrong way.

Really depends on the context and the individual. But I don't think that activity translates at face value. There are even subtle differences in these activities between the lower and higher tantras. Context is everything.

monktastic said:
Your statement was not "out of line," but it did put words in his mouth and I wanted to set the record straight on what he actually said.

krodha wrote:
I cited "what he actually said" in my response when I quoted your statement.

monktastic said:
And honestly, in the moment of recognition, "inside" and "outside" are meaningless.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps, but not because there is only "God".


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:
monktastic said:
Actually, he didn't use any of those words. You did. His words were "god is inside." I did not bother to tell him that my friend's tradition teaches that too. The meaning of his instruction was clear, and it wasn't an appropriate time to press him on the issue.

krodha wrote:
Seeing as how Buddhism doesn't actually teach that "God" is inside apart from the abstract statement which was made in the context of the discussion you cited, I can't see how my statement is out of line. We're clearly way out in left field la la land as it is when it comes to comparing "God" in Buddhism and Hindusim. Nothing definitive to cling to there, that is for sure.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:
krodha wrote:
This discussion is reminiscent of a post Malcolm made some time ago:

Malcolm said:
So we can find a lot of parallels in Dzogchen and non-Buddhist teachings. The one main difference between Dzogchen and most non-Buddhist traditions is that in Dzogchen there is a definite rejection of creation by a creator. Even in Advaita, on a relative level, they accept Ishvara as a creator. So this is an important difference.

Don't beleive it when people say that Kun byed rgyal po is a Buddhist creator myth. It is not true. Kun byed gyal po refers to the mind. It does not mean Samantabhadra is a primordial creator deity or a kind of Buddhism theism. People who claim this like Alan Wallace and Eva Dargyay-Neumier are mistaken.

But as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu says, "God" can be understood as a symbol of one's primordial state. So we do not necessarily have to reject "God" if we are Dzogchen practitioners, if by "God" we mean our own primordial potentiality and the primordial potentiality of everything. This is why we have that famous passage the text on Rigpa from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, cribbed by Shabkar in this way:

Now then, fortunate beloved children, listen!
Concerning this important term widely known as “mind”, 
in terms of existence, the mind does not exist as a single entity.
In terms of sources, the mind is the source of the diverse happiness and suffering of samsara and nirvana.

Assertions about the mind exist in many categories of the vehicles.
The mind is designated by inconceivable different names:
ordinary people call the mind “I”;
some non-Buddhists give it the name “atman”;
the shravakas call it the “selfless person”;
the mind-only school gives it the name “mind”;
some call it “the perfection of wisdom”;
some give it the name” sugatagarbha”;
some give it the name “mahāmudra”;
some give it the name “madhyamaka”;
some give it the name “the single unique sphere”;
some give it the name “dharmadhātu”;
some give it the name “all-basis”;
some give it the name “ordinary mind”.
Although it is given inconceivable names,
since it is just this mind in reality, one must recognize it.

You must let the mind itself go free just where it is.
Having been let go, naked ordinary awareness,
a clarity that cannot be seen by looking for it,
the clear and vivid personal experience of vidyā,
is not established in any way at all, empty and pellucid.
Brilliant non-dual clarity and emptiness
is not permanent— not established at all;
is not annihilated— clear and vivid;
is not single— manifold, knowing and clear;
is not manifold— indivisible, one taste. 
Not existing elsewhere, this is one’s own vidyā,
the true face of the original guide dwelling within one’s heart,
seen here right now in one’s personal experience. 
Never be separate from this beloved children!


We could add a passage:

"other non-Buddhists give it the name “god”..."

This passage illustrates the point I have made all along. We do not need to imagine that all faiths lead to the same point, we merely have to accept that all humans beings are trying to find the same thing: the peace and happiness that comes from freedom.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Speaking of the G word... Really makes you think.

krodha wrote:
Chögyal Namkhai Norbu said that it was quite easy to see Dzogpachenpo in the Judeo-Christian principles he encountered when he used to frequent a church in Italy some years ago.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Prayer
Content:
monktastic said:
(Sorry for digging up an old thread, but I felt this was worth sharing.)

I had the opportunity to ask Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche about this earlier this year. I related the story of a friend who had been a devout Hindu as a child, and how his incredibly intense supplication and surrender to the all-good may have given him glimpses of the nature of mind. So intense that tears streamed and hairs stood on end, etc. DPR smiled broadly and nodded. He commented that this was completely natural -- that the spark of inspiration one gets while thinking of Sakyamuni is exactly the same thing. It is the devotion part of devotion and compassion. I was a bit surprised, and asked how praying to god could have any relationship to Dzogchen. He told me "Hinduism, Buddhism... same thing. The only difference is that Buddha showed that god is inside *."

YMMV, but I'd call that an endorsement.

* Many branches of Hinduism -- including the one my friend practiced in -- also teach this.

krodha wrote:
I like how he says Buddhism and Hinduism are the same thing, except for this one major difference ha (sugatagarbha pervading the heart of sentient beings rather than being an undifferentiated ontological existent which pervades everything).


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 5th, 2014 at 2:05 PM
Title: Re: Real or Pretend?
Content:
smcj said:
It was 6 arm Mahakala stomping on a Genesh.

krodha wrote:
Yeah I was just using Yamantaka as an example... cos he be in beast-mode steppin' on hella ppl.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 5th, 2014 at 1:27 PM
Title: Re: Real or Pretend?
Content:
smcj said:
But then why is he depicted as being stomped on by certain wrathful deities? Doesn't make sense that way.

krodha wrote:
Wrathful deities stepping on beings just means they are pacifying that being and/or what that being represents. Certain images of Yamantaka depict him stepping on Buddha Śākyamuni amongst numerous other figures for example. It is like that Zen proverb "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." Meaning the path and result are noble aspirations but eventually even the means and the desire for liberation must be overcome. Yamantaka represents primordial wisdom, deathless and free from all extremes and attachment, hence he is trampling various deities, Buddhas and other beings. However that doesn't mean it is anti-Buddha. Same for Ganesh being underfoot.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 3rd, 2014 at 3:11 PM
Title: Re: Dharma wheel, ethics, value & online communities
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Science has not yet impinged on the truths Buddhism holds to be definitive. But of course it has proven that some of the conventional truths Buddhists hold to are indeed false or metaphorical.

krodha wrote:
Buddhism proves all of its conventional truths to be false, that is the entire point of the teaching. So it doesn't really mean anything at all if science has apparently refuted a few conventions which are ultimately unreal.

Andrew108 said:
But above all, those truths that are considered contingent or relative can be interpreted and discussed with reference to ideas outside of the body of teachings. And if the reasoning and logic of scientists gains the upper hand then those Buddhist ideas need to be interpreted metaphorically  - they can't be held to be invariant or definitive.

krodha wrote:
How would science, which is concerned with ontological truths, gain an upper hand on a self-deconstructive, soteriological, pedagogical methodology which is strictly epistemic in nature? You're comparing apples and oranges.

Models found within the buddhadharma are posited for purposes of practicality, and are catered towards that type of application. Buddhism is in the business of soteriology, meaning it is solely concerned with liberation (or varying degrees thereof) which is procured via experiential epistemic insights... ontology never comes into the picture. Any constructs and structures presented by the buddhadharma are strictly a means to liberate you from the conditioned projections of inherency which are falsely attributed to your conventionally conscious condition. Those structures are self-deconstructive and are therefore provisional in every way. Rafts to be abandoned.

Science (materialist, physicalist or otherwise) on the other hand, has zero practical application or soteriological value. Buddhism, unlike science, is meant to transcend limitation, and is solely concerned with doing so. The dharma is applied within our limitations on the outset, but it works with those limitations and is meant to pacify them. The same cannot be said for science. There is no path, no means, no method for awakening to be found in science. Science is helpful and wonderful, but there will never be a day where science 'gains the upper hand' in any sense of the notion.

Also, Buddhism never holds its principles as 'definitive' in the way you are apparently perceiving it to. Certainly not in the sense that science considers its insights to be 'definitive'. Buddhism does not adhere to these scientific underpinnings you project onto it.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 2nd, 2014 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: Unbinding, and The Unmade
Content:
Jikan said:
Please forgive my ignorance.  What do you mean by "unbinding"?

krodha wrote:
Unbinding is term sometimes used to describe nirvāṇa. In the sense that nirvāṇa is an exhaustion, an unbinding, a release, an extinguishing, a liberation, a cessation, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 30th, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Yes absence of identity can be experienced and infact one can make the case that without absence of identity, experience wouldn't be possible.

krodha wrote:
Which is why I noted that these relative occurrences are byproducts of that principle [lack of identity or arising in phenomena].

Andrew108 said:
But emptiness is a concept.

krodha wrote:
Again, 'emptiness' as an enumerated notion is a concept. The direct realization however is not a concept, just as the direct taste of sugar is not a concept.

Andrew108 said:
Without concepts experience is naturally non-fixated - naturally non-fixated because experience and the content of experience are naturally without own identity.

krodha wrote:
Well, 'concepts' in the context of these teachings does not mean simply 'conceptual thought'; but rather includes all abstractive fabrications that the deluded mind serves to manifest such as ideas, emotions, the five poisons, acceptance, rejection etc.

When the deluded mind is pacified (due to delusion itself being pacified through unenumerated and direct wisdom-insight), then natural non-fixation is known. Until that point however there will always be a subtle fixation present, even if one attempts to drop concepts and simply rest in a semblance of non-fixation like in objectless śamatha. Fixation will still be latently present because there has not been wisdom-insight to pacify the reference point of mind.

The fact that experience and its contents are naturally without identity is not what the teachings are concerned with. Rather, they are concerned wth knowledge or ignorance of that fact. Just because experience naturally lacks identity does not mean one possesses that knowledge. There cannot be knowledge of dharmatā without recognition.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 30th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The problem is that students want to find emptiness or at least experience it. But it is impossible to experience emptiness because when you do you are experiencing a 'something' called absence or emptiness. A cup that seems solid is changing from one moment to the next. That change is coming about because of interdependence. That interdependence is suggestive of a lack of own identity. There is no room for emptiness. It's a concept about interdependence and the fact or law that dharmas have no own identity.

krodha wrote:
Emptiness (as in an absence of identity) can absolutely be directly recognized in an experiential sense. A cup that is allegedly changing from one moment to the next is not that lack of identity, but rather is an abstractive byproduct of that principle. Change is also empty, as time and the dharmins which would allegedly change (while enduring in time) cannot be found when sought.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 28th, 2014 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Do you mean a cup which had liquid in it but now does not? If so then the cup is not empty because air is in the cup instead of liquid. So the idea that the cup is empty is just a concept. What is meant is that instead of there being liquid there is now air. As hard as you try to find emptiness you wont be able to. All you can find is a changed state. In this sense emptiness is just a concept related to absence and absence is a concept related to a changed state. Both 'emptiness' and 'absence' are concepts or only work at a conventional level as vague descriptives.

krodha wrote:
How is this related to emptiness in any way whatsoever? Cups which contain liquid and an absence of liquid? This has nothing to do with emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 27th, 2014 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Andrew108 said:
@ Sherab. Emptiness in the suttas you referenced simply means no essence can found and therefore craving has no basis. Emptiness is a conclusion about a natural fact. In that sense it is conceptual. Look at the Sunna Sutta for a basic outline of emptiness. It is the fact of anatta. Then comes the concept 'it is empty of what it appears to be'. But in no way is emptiness a property of the thing.

krodha wrote:
How could emptiness be a property of a thing, when no such things can be found apart from conventionality?

Are you suggesting that there are actually things which do not have emptiness as a property?

All in all it's impossible to understand emptiness or dependent origination while maintaining a materialist view. Materialism directly contradicts the insight that emptiness and/or dependent origination are meant to convey.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 27th, 2014 at 4:18 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Andrew108 said:
@ asunthatneversets . Dependent origination is not a view but an invariance experienced in a factual way. In a material way.

krodha wrote:
This assertion is tragic, to say the least.

Andrew108 said:
Emptiness is the view. The concept. The imagined.

krodha wrote:
As mentioned earlier in this thread; there is emptiness in its enumerated form, which is a concept. And then there is emptiness in its unenumerated form, which is not a concept.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 27th, 2014 at 4:05 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
Andrew108 said:
There is no 'it is emptiness'. Emptiness is just another way to talk about interdependence. Phenomena don't have emptiness as a property. Again, emptiness is just a concept concerning dependent origination. This 'emptiness as a property' is the one view that I had before that caused me many problems. This view that emptiness is a property and is descriptive of an ultimate is IMO very damaging.

krodha wrote:
Well, not interdependence. Pratityasamutpada does not translate to 'interdependency'.

But you're correct, phenomena do not possess emptiness as a property because said phenomena which would possess 'emptiness' cannot be found. Their lack of essence, substantiality, findability, etc. is what we term their 'emptiness'. This will not make sense to you since you uphold a view of physicalist materialism.

Emptiness is not merely a concept concerning dependent origination. Dependent origination is a view which can be implemented to realize emptiness.

Trust me 'emptiness as a property' is the least of your worries when it comes to damaging views.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 27th, 2014 at 3:04 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
krodha wrote:
The ultimate is described as 'permanent' because it is emptiness, ergo it never arose and therefore cannot cease. However it is not an permanent existent in the ontological sense, that type of permanence is of course considered to be impossible.

Everything is transient except for the ultimate simply means that the emptiness of phenomena is never compromised or adulterated by the various apparent activities and actions of relative phenomena. Non-arisen dharmas are non-arisen by nature, meaning; the arising, abiding and cessation (transiency) of dharmins is delusory abstraction and afflictive fabrication. From the standpoint of the ultimate it is explicitly known that there has never been arising, abiding or cessation.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 26th, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
rachmiel said:
"More" ultimate imo: no oasis, no mirage, no ultimate truth. Just ... ________________ (pure experience) .

krodha wrote:
Just 'pure experience' would be like saying there is just 'pure weather'. The weather isn't an entity but rather a designation attributed to any number of appearances or combinations thereof. Weather is an abstraction, you'll never find 'weather' as such, it is just a useful convention. Same goes for experience.

Also, since when investigated all the elements which would constitute 'experience' are non-arisen, experience itself is non-arisen. Because again, experience isn't a homogeneous entity but is instead an aggregated heterogeneous amalgamation of various elements, aspects, characteristics, which do not withstand scrutiny themselves.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 26th, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
krodha wrote:
In an example of an oasis which is actually a mirage:

The oasis is the conventional designation.

The appearance of water, foliage, trees which constitutes the oasis is the relative truth. However the oasis is actually a mirage, so the 'oasis' is a deluded cognition. That cognition functions in as far as it is efficient, but it will not withstand proper scrutiny. That is relative truth.

The ultimate truth is recognizing that the oasis is actually a mirage. There is nothing truly there which has any inherency or substantiality. Recognition of the unreality of the oasis is a valid cognition.

When we formulate a conceptual description of that ultimate truth, it is actually a conventional description, and so is only relative.

The non-conceptual recognition itself, the experiential lived realization, is the actual ultimate truth. But of course that cannot be captured using words, just as the taste of chocolate cannot be truly communicated using words.

So it isn't as cut and dry as story and non-story. But at the same time it is in a way. There are just a few nuanced aspects of this topic so the context would of course be important.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 26th, 2014 at 9:15 AM
Title: Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Content:
krodha wrote:
The relative is X person, place, thing etc. i.e. objects of deluded cognition.

The ultimate is the non-arising of X person, place, thing etc., which is valid cognition.

When you delineate or describe the ultimate using words it is an enumerated ultimate. Which is a conventional relative truth. Like describing the taste of an orange.

The direct realization of the ultimate, which is non-conceptual is the unenumerated ultimate. Like the actual taste of an orange.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Krishnamurti and Dzogchen........Hmmmm
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I met UG. THought he was an utter phoney. Said 'Buddha was a fascist'.

krodha wrote:
That was U.G.'s method for the most part; non-affirming negation, except not in the skillful way non-affirming negations occur in Madhyamaka for example, he just straight up said any alleged spiritual authority was phony. The purpose for that being that he didn't allow anyone to grasp at anything or land anywhere. That's why no one really gets what U.G. was trying to convey in his teaching and you have a lot of people who simply think he was a negative guy who attacked everything and everyone. But once you get what he's doing and see his interactions it becomes clear.

I came into contact with the buddhadharma through my friend's uncle who used to follow U.G. around. He said U.G. was actually a very kind and loving man, despite how his methods came across.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Krishnamurti and Dzogchen........Hmmmm
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I kind of prefer the other Krishnamurti.

oushi said:
Me too.
Debates between those two were probably fascinating. Like fire and water. I wonder if there are any records of both Krishnamurti meeting.

krodha wrote:
They did. UG Krishnamurti actually attained his initial realization at a teaching that Jiddu Krishnamurti was giving. I believe UG was somewhat of an avid follower of Jiddu prior to that incident as well. UG writes of frustrations he had with trying to understand Jiddu for quite some time prior his own awakening experience.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
rachmiel said:
I don't see the relationship between the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandhas and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Dhyani_Buddhas. Am I missing something?

krodha wrote:
When the skandhas are experienced from the standpoint of primordial wisdom, they are recognized to be wisdom itself, or more specifically five aspects of primordial wisdom.

Sogyal Rinpoche states: You can also think of the nature of mind like a mirror, with five different powers or 'wisdoms.' Its openness and vastness is the wisdom of all-encompassing space [or dharmadhātu], the womb of compassion. Its capacity to reflect in precise detail whatever comes before it is the mirror-like wisdom. Its fundamental lack of any bias toward any impression is the equalizing wisdom [or wisdom of equality]. Its ability to distinguish clearly, without confusing in any way the various different phenomena that arise, is the wisdom of discernment. And its potential of having everything already accomplished, perfected, and spontaneously present is the all-accomplishing wisdom. (The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, p. 157)
Form skandha [rūpaskandha] becomes mirror-like wisdom [skt. ādarśajñāna, tib. me long lta bu'i ye shes]. Just as the clear surface of a mirror reflects everything before it, the wisdom of dharmadhātu ‘reflects’ all the phenomena of samsara and nirvana. This clear reflection is the mirror-like wisdom.

Sensation skandha [vedanāskandha] becomes wisdom of equality [skt. samatājñāna, tib. mnyam nyid ye shes]. Just as all the reflections in a mirror are the same in being simply reflections, without any concept of good or bad, the wisdom of equality is to regard samsara and nirvana as equal, as having a single mode and one taste.

Perception skandha [samjñāskandha] becomes discriminating wisdom [skt. pratyavekṣanājñāna, tib. so sor rtog pa'i ye shes]. It is the knowledge that while from the point of view of the ultimate nature all phenomena are the same in being equal, from the point of view of the phenomena themselves all things in samsara and nirvana are distinct and not confounded.

Volition skandha [samskāraskandha] becomes all-accomplishing wisdom [skt. kṛtyānuṣṭhānajñāna, tib. bya ba grub pa'i ye shes]. Like a doctor who diagnoses a disease by taking the patient’s pulse and then does all he can to treat and remedy the disease, the buddhas, with their all-accomplishing wisdom, consider beings and the ways by which they might benefit them, and then appear spontaneously and effortlessly, without change or exertion, to benefit those beings.

Consciousness skandha [vijñānaskandha] becomes dharmadhātu wisdom [skt. dharmadhātujñāna, tib. chos kyi dbyings kyi ye shes]. The wisdom of the dharmadhātu is the realization of the ultimate truth, the natural state of all things.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Five skandhas are primordial five Buddhas, but adventitious obstacles obscure these natural qualities, like cataracts.

rachmiel said:
Please explicate further.

krodha wrote:
The five skandhas in their natural expression are the five wisdoms i.e. the five dhyani buddhas.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 22nd, 2014 at 5:44 PM
Title: Re: Krishnamurti and Dzogchen........Hmmmm
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Any time someone says that Dzogchen is like...... Then they get told that Dzogchen is unique and a system unto itself etc. So these threads are somewhat of a dead end. However, the realizations that practitioners of different systems have are pretty much the same if they have explored their traditions in full as Krishnamurti had.

krodha wrote:
Not really... the 'choiceless awareness' that Krishnamurti speaks of is clearly not the same thing. However there is surely no knee jerk reactivity occurring on the account of Dzogchen being 'unique'. Sure the system which surrounds Dzogchen may be unique, but the definitive realization is the same state as all Buddhas, call it prajñāpāramitā, Mahāmudrā, Dzogchen, it's the same.

At any rate, you're the guy who went head over heels for the Ramana Maharshi quote which was featured as the epigraph in 'The Marvelous Primordial State' and couldn't for the life of you understand how or why that was an inappropriate fit. So it's blatantly obvious where your confirmation biases lie. Whether you really don't understand the differences in the systems, or just like to kick up dust for the sheer fun of being contradictory I have no idea. One thing is clear though, these little controversial topics are your favorite because you get to act as if you're taking some sort of highly evolved, open minded, high ground which contrasts those partial to what you call 'orthodoxy.' Surprised it took you this long to add your two cents in this thread to be honest... but never fear, Andrew is here.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 22nd, 2014 at 3:09 PM
Title: Re: Krishnamurti and Dzogchen........Hmmmm
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Interesting how the great naysayer to all religious hypocrisy has now become an icon to be dismissed.

krodha wrote:
No one is dismissing Krishnamurti, the only thing which is being addressed is the assertion that Krishnamurti's view is the same as the Dzogchen view. I would dismiss that assertion, others may not.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 22nd, 2014 at 2:04 PM
Title: Re: Krishnamurti and Dzogchen........Hmmmm
Content:
Stefos said:
When I compare Krishnamurti's "Choiceless Awareness" to Dzogchen's "Naked Awareness," it's the same thing!

krodha wrote:
Not the same thing. Here's B. Alan Wallace on 'choiceless awareness' in the context of Dzogchen:

"It's vitally important to distinguish between this shamatha practice and 'choiceless awareness,' which has recently been introduced by popularizers of vipassana meditation... As for choiceless awareness, there are no references to this term in any of the teachings of the Buddha recorded in the Pali language or in their authoritative commentaries, so it is misleading to present this as vipassana practice. In reality, choiceless awareness is a term coined and defined by Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), who characterized it as the observation of whatever is occurring in the present moment, without any reaction, resistance, justification, or condemnation. As helpful as this practice has proven to be, as it's been studied within the context of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, it is neither shamatha nor a viplasyana practice in any Buddhist tradition. 

Such choiceless awareness also bears a strong similarity to 'open presence,' which a number of popularizers of Dzogchen teach these days. This practice consists of simply letting your awareness be open to all kinds of appearances, sensory and mental, while letting them come and go without intervention. 'Open presence' is a very loose translation of the Tibetan term rig pa chog zhag, which literally means 'resting in pristine awareness.' This refers to the 'breakthrough' phase of Dzogchen practice, and to engage in such authentic meditation, you must first gain an experiential realization of rigpa, and then simply rest - without distraction and without grasping - in this ultimate-ground state of consciousness. This practice is imply sustaining the Dzogchen view: viewing all phenomena from the perspective of rigpa. However, without having such realization of rigpa, one is simply resting in one's ordinary dualistic mind, like a marmot sunning on a rock, and does not qualify as shamatha, vipasyana, or Dzogchen. Dudjom Lingpa ridicules such practice by citing the Tibetan aphorism, 'The marmot ostensibly cultivating meditative stabilization is actually hibernating.'"


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 22nd, 2014 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I've also enjoyed Lama Lena's teachings the few times I've seen her. Unfortunate that Lama Wangdor doesn't travel anymore, to the U.S. I mean, he is quite incredible.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 22nd, 2014 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I take it he wouldn't recommend her?

krodha wrote:
Probably not. If you want to make a local connection of that type (Dzogchen etc.), I'd say go with Chaphur Rinpoche in Richmond, CA, or Lama Lena who is back in the area, there's also a lama connected to Chatral Rinpoche in San Mateo I believe (forget his name but can find out), the Nyingma spot in San Jose, Orgyen Dorje Den in Alameda or good old' Dondrub Ling.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 21st, 2014 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I asked a friend about her who's been around the Berkeley/bay area dharma scene for a long time and all he had to say was; "Yeah, I know who she is and have met her. To be honest, she's ok, however she doesn't show me sh*t." So... there's that statement, in all of its infinite wisdom ha.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 21st, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
krodha wrote:
What is interesting to see is that the ātman proponents usually tend to cast aspersions at those who advocate for the view of anātman, stating they are nihilists or annihilationists. Which is patently false being that the view of anātman proper is non-arising and a freedom from extremes, ergo anātman is not a view which errs into extremes. The irony of the entire matter is that the same cannot be said for the ātman proponents themselves, for they are guilty of what they project onto those who uphold the view of non-arising [anātman], which is; they (the ātman proponents) are the ones who uphold an extreme view.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 21st, 2014 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
shel said:
Being that spelling is so important, I feel it must be pointed out that you've misspelled ego-centerdness. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip of some sort. In any case, we're all human, even Easterners.

krodha wrote:
For the record: Ego- centeredness. You misspelled it too.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 20th, 2014 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Guru Rinpoche on this matter ...

dzogchungpa said:
Further on "Guru Rinpoche" has a little more to say: Now, wakefulness that is primordially pure in essence
Is unobservable and indescribable, beyond words and analogies,
Not an object of conceptual mind, but the original empty nature
In which samsara is unfounded and nirvana is a mere designation.

The spontaneously present nature is the unconfined expression of wakefulness;
Like light from the sun in the sky,
It pervades everywhere and abides as the life-force of everyone,
Indivisible from anything and without being partial to samsara or nirvana.

These two are beyond the constructs of 'one' and 'many'.
This natural state of unformed unity,
Unviewable, the king of all views,
Is what the lord of yogis in his personal experience
Should be pointed out and actualized as being the view.

krodha wrote:
No contradiction at all.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 20th, 2014 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Guru Rinpoche on this matter:
The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

This is not the case, so were the second to be true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging [bdag 'dzin].

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny.
- Padmasambhava


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 18th, 2014 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Indeed. And in K Venkata Ramanan's translation and commentary on the MMK, he observes that at some times the Buddha would teach 'there is a self' when speaking to those with nihilistic tendencies, and say the opposite when speaking to those of the opposite view. As often was the case, what he said depended on the pre-disposition of those he was talking to, as part of 'skillful means'.

ps. Beings are not actually nothings. In some schools of Mahayana there is a saying, 'all beings are already _________'.

Fill in the blank. Hint: begins with 'B'.

krodha wrote:
The proper view is emptiness, free from extremes. It resolves all of these issues.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 10:28 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
yea that wasn't my interpretation of Dolpopa, that was direct quotes from him stating his view on the existance of the True Self/Enlightenment.
he was very clear that The True Self is Enlightenment and he upheld the 4 virtues of Nirvana(and then some)

krodha wrote:
It is your interpretation, which is shared by some and considered inaccurate by others. Personally I don't really care for Dolbulba's teachings at all so I have no vested interest in promulgating a viewpoint.

I'm merely saying your view is not the inherent and infallible treatment, it's an interpretation. If there can be multiple interpretations, then all possibilities are equal in being interpretations. You may consider your interpretation to be correct, but that does not alter its status as an interpretation.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 10:06 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
no this conversation wasn't about convincing you of the True Self, this conversation was about correcting your misrepresention concerning Dolpopa's actual teachings on the topic of True Self.

if you want to know about the True Self you don't need me to tell you about about it , just read the numerous Buddhist Sutras and Tantras it is taught in

krodha wrote:
Ah, well apparently not everyone shares your sentiments regarding Dolbulba's view. You have your interpretation, some people agree with that type of view, some don't. Some people interpret certain sūtras and tantras as advocating for a True Self, someone else may read the exact same texts and not see a 'True Self' suggested at all.

So no, your interpretation of Dolbulba is not 'the actual' view of the teaching, it is your interpretation. Same goes for my view on it. Likewise your predilection to see a True Self in certain teachings is your own, and far from an inherently official view. Same goes for my view on the matter.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
We most certainly would,we uphold the 4 virtues of Nirvana: Permenance,Bliss,Purity,True Self.

asunthatneversets said:
The term 'self' [atman] in that context means 'nature' as was previously clarified when this came up before. It is describing the definitive nature of mind as luminosity free from extremes.

Son of Buddha said:
in what context?
from the context of the Buddhist teachings on True Self, True self means True, real, eternal, sovereign/autonomous/ self governing, ground/foundation is unchanging, uncreated, unconditioned, unborn,pure,bliss,permanent.
Dolpopa taught 75 straight pages in the Mountain Doctrine defending the True Self.
asunthatneversets"
Though not in the sense you mean. Which is addressed in the Mountain Doctrine itself, as pointed out by Malcolm some time ago:

"Since the matrix-of-the-one gone-thus is empty of the two selves, it is not similar to the self of the forders [tīrthikas], and because uncompounded noumena transcends the momentary, it is permanent, stable, and everlasting. It is not that it, like space, is without any of the qualities, powers, and aspects of a buddha, and it is not like the self of persons that the forders impute to be permanent."
Mountain Doctrine, ppg. 118-119.
this quote is not Dolpopa saying there is No Self, this quote is Dolpopa showing that the Noumena True Self is not like the self of the forders.
what I highlighted in Pink is Dolpopa's description of the Noumenal True Self.

Also look very carefully at the page number you listed ppg. 118-119, these are apart of the page numbers where he is being objected to for having a True Self view.

if Malcolm would of kept reading the Mountain Doctrine for just 6 more pages he would of gotten to ppg 125 which is where Dolpopa goes into a 75+ page defense of the True Self teachings which starts with this opponents objection:

ppg 125: Objection: The basic element of Selfhood, Great self, Pure Self, and so forth do not at all exist because Self foes not at all exist.

Dolpopa's Answer: In that case, the Self of Thusness, Pure Self, also would not exist. Like wise these would not exist:(here he gives along list of True Self names/titles listed in the Tantras and the Sutras

Glorious Guhyasamaja Tantra, The pure self of the supreme,fortunate Buddha, The noumenon not having the nature of consciousness is the ultimate, immutable Self..........then like I said he goes into 75 pages of Tantra and Sutra quotes concerning the True Self and his explanation of them.

Dolpopa only objected to the "two selves' positions of the forders he did not disagree with the Noumenal Self that is beyond Samsaric understanding.

krodha wrote:
Yes you really enjoy an eternalist or essentialist view, and your confirmation biases reflect that. I am not partial to that type of view. As we've danced this dance numerous times, and you've had this discussion various times with others; I obviously won't be convincing you of anything, nor will you convince me of anything. We each have our opinions and can agree to disagree. To each their own.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 9:17 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I'm not a scholar, so I don't really know, but why don't you do a search for 'great identity' in Gyurme Dorje's translation of the Guhyagarbha Tantra together with Longchenpa's commentary, available here: http://vajrayana.faithweb.com/guhyagarbhatantra.pdf, and see what you think.

krodha wrote:
Longchenpa definitely disagrees with the non-Buddhist interpretation of 'atman':

"The final [turning] for the sake of those who had reached fulfillment and who were of sharpest capacity taught the nature of all that is knowable, as it really is. As such, it bears no similarity to the self [ātman] of the Hindu heretics because these people in their ignorance speak of a 'self' that does not actually exist, being a mere imputation superimposed on reality."

Malcolm has also shared quite a bit of insight regarding the use of 'bdag nyid/atman' in the context of the buddhadharma:

Malcolm said:
The term bdag nyid, atman, just means, in this case, "nature", i.e. referring to the nature of reality free from extremes as being permanent, blissful, pure and self. The luminosity of the mind is understood to be this.

There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:

In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.

The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:

Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.

Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity".
This is because the term bdag nyid chen po has a different connotation that those people who merely blindly translate things literally.

The term is carefully explained by Nubchen Sangye Yeshe to mean that all phenomena are included in the state of Samantabhadra. This then is the meaning of mahātman, bdag nyid chen po, in Dzogchen teachings in general.

In general, the way the term is used in sutras and tantras is as a title, i.e., "great persons", mahātmas.
Yes, perfection of identity, described in the Uttaratantra as being beyond self and non-self:

Having purified the proliferation of self and non-self
Since [the proliferation] is completely pacified, it is the highest self.

But, you have to realize that reality has been described already in the Uttaratantra as free from all extremes of proliferation. The dharmakāya is defined as the wisdom of Jinas, which is course is why it cannot be seen even by tenth stage bodhisattvas since they still possess a thin veil of the knowledge obscuration.

Here, that which is being described as the nature of the mind, the mind essence, is what Mipham is describing.
What I am saying is that people are incapable of perceiving the difference in meaning between the two terminologies because they are unfamiliar with the basic premises of which underlie Ramana Maharshi's statements in general. I am sure they are not the same because I have received teachings in Dzogchen and I have received teachings in Yoga sutras, etc. And the premises underlying Ramana Maharshi's practice and realization and the premises underlying Dzogchen practice and realization are not the same.

For example, these extracts are taken from the section of Nub's review of different views held by different Dzogchen masters enunciated. bDag nyid chen po is Vairocana's favored way of expressing Dzogchen view. Vimalamitra's was called gza' gtad dang bral ba, "freedom from reference points", Garab Dorje's view, so he says, was lhun grub., and so on.

So the "great self" approach is one facet; the lhun sgrub view is another facet, etc. But one cannot get stuck on these views because it is very clearly explained in such tantras as sgra thal 'gyur and others that there are seven positions about the basis [gzhi] and only one of them (i.e. the basis is ka dag) is in the final analysis utterly faultless.

Please do not lose sight of the fact that these views are partial attempts to describe the view of Dzogchen. So when we see things like the above citation we mustn't rush off and start proclaiming to everyone that Dzogchen teaching teaches the same things as Ramana Maharshi. We have to understand that Ramana is coming from the Samkhya/Yoga tradition. He says nothing that cannot be found in the Yoga sutras as interpreted by Shankaracarya.

I am also pointing out that there is a long standing commentarial tradition based on the Dzogchen tantras own statement that will not allow one to interpret such terms as bdag nyid chen po as being in any way similar in intent to the sentiments of RM that you cite above.
It is not the same. Maharshi's comments make sense in the context of Samkhya/Yoga where there is a total cessation of citta vrttis, and yet Purusha remains. People deify Maharshi, but since they do not have a basic grasp of the Samkhya Yoga tradition, they really do not understand the context of his statements such as the above.

Dzogchen teachings are not stating that there is an existing atman which is free from cittavrttis.

Generally, we must not take such terminologies as implying something they are not. Otherwise, the Dzogchen tantras and upadeshas detailed refutations of the views of self found outside Buddhadharma will be rendered senseless.
Yes, I am saying that purusha is the self, according to Ramana and Advaita. The main difference between Advaita and Yoga is Advaita asserts there is only one self or purusha, but SamkhyaYoga asserts there are many -- otherwise, the path taught in Yoga and the path taught in Advaita are the same. When you look at Ramanas remarks about pratyakasha for example, these remarks are completely consistent with the way pratyaksha is treated in the Yoga sutras.

You also have to understand that purusha excludes all phenomena from itself. It is pure consciousness, but prakriti is not part of purusha. Advaita too keeps the prakriti purusha duality in terms of relative truth, but rather than asserting that prakriti is real, it asserts that prakriti is actually unreal (maya). However, cit, is real, is brahman. Here, they understand that purusha actually means brahman.

bdag nyid chen po in Dzogchen pretty clearly refers to the basis, not any kind of personal identity, transcendent or otherwise, which is why ChNN translate it as "the totality of one's state".


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
The point is, ''bdag nyid" is Tibetan for "atman".

krodha wrote:
Obviously, however that really isn't the point for the reasons mentioned above.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 7:30 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Hint: "bdag nyid" is Tibetan.

krodha wrote:
Right, and is not 'atman' in the sense of a personal or universal self (like the use of the term in the context of Vedanta suggests).


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Just for the record, the Buddhist tantras do indeed talk about atman.

krodha wrote:
Example?

The tantras speak of bdag nyid and bdag nyid chen po, but this does not mean atman in the sense of a personal or universal self. It is a reference to the nature or identity of things as innately pure, free from arising, abiding, cessation etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
We most certainly would,we uphold the 4 virtues of Nirvana: Permenance,Bliss,Purity,True Self.

krodha wrote:
The term 'self' [atman] in that context means 'nature' as was previously clarified when this came up before. It is describing the definitive nature of mind as luminosity free from extremes.

Son of Buddha said:
Dolpopa taught 75 straight pages in the Mountain Doctrine defending the True Self.

krodha wrote:
Though not in the sense you mean. Which is addressed in the Mountain Doctrine itself, as pointed out by Malcolm some time ago:

"Since the matrix-of-the-one gone-thus is empty of the two selves, it is not similar to the self of the forders [tīrthikas], and because uncompounded noumena transcends the momentary, it is permanent, stable, and everlasting. It is not that it, like space, is without any of the qualities, powers, and aspects of a buddha, and it is not like the self of persons that the forders impute to be permanent."
Mountain Doctrine, ppg. 118-119.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
rachmiel said:
I guess what I'm asking is something like:

Who or what is it that acts, experiences, perceives, senses, thinks, dreams, suffers, awakens?

krodha wrote:
An inferential, conventional designation.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Why Garchen Rinpoche meditates so much
Content:
krodha wrote:
Just shared the statement in the OP with a friend, who replied:

"I had an experience with him [Garchen Rinpoche] once that seems to confirm this. I was attending a teaching he gave at Tibet Center in New York. He was sick with a bad cold or pneumonia and kept clearing his throat while the translator spoke, forgetting that he had a microphone pinned to his robe. His innocence was very endearing. At one point the text being translated said 'Every sound is the Buddha's speech,' and another loud cough filled the room. At one point I felt a strong feeling of love for him and the wish that he be well. His head turned and he looked at me, smiling, and waved as if saying 'hello.' I was one of about two hundred people and sitting near the back of the audience. It was a direct and immediate communication - the heart wish from me and what looked like a 'thank you' and 'hello' from him.

In this case it wasn't my need he was picking up, but I was sure he had felt what I was feeling for him."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: Is there anyone home?
Content:
Dhammawheel said:
All the questions that he [the Buddha] did not answer when asked were in some way or the other tied to the nature of the self i.e. an attempt to define it and grasp it, to form a view about it.

Wayfarer said:
Quite true. 'What am I? Will I continue to exist? Will I not exist?' All of those questions arise out of self-concern.

krodha wrote:
Buddha refrained from answering more so due to the fact that the 'self' is a conventional title attributed to patterns of grasping which manifest the illusion of a subject indentifying with objects [in this case; views]. Therefore he said identification with the view there is a self is precisely the self, indentification with the view of no-self is precisely the self, etc. All views must be abandoned. In order to prevent further proliferation and grasping in his disciples he did not give an answer.

"Moreover, these sentient beings must have also discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conceptions of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self, because if they had not, their minds would inevitably grasp after such relative ideas. Further, these sentient beings must have already discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conception of the non-existence of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self. If they had not, their minds would still be grasping after such ideas. Therefore, every disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discard, also, all ideas about such conceptions and all ideas about the non-existence of such conceptions."
- Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Is Nirvana Worth It?
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
In the teachings of the third turning of the wheel of dharma, it is said that Buddha-nature is like a eternal self (atman)...

krodha wrote:
Not really. As shared by Astus some time ago:

"In the country of Benares at Rsipatana in the Deer Park, the World-honored One first turned the wheel of doctrine, [teaching] the four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful, such as nobody, whether gods or men, had been able to turn in the world before. Nevertheless there were superior teachings, for [this first turning] had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. Then the World-honored One with an underlying intent turned the wheel for the second time for the sake of those setting out in the great vehicle, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful indeed. Nevertheless there were teachings superior to this, for it also had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. The World-honored One then with an explicit meaning for the third time turned the wheel of doctrine for those setting out in all the vehicles, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning was the most marvelous and wonderful that had ever occurred in the world. It had no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy."
(Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 5, p 49; tr. Keenan, BDK edition)

So, to sum up the teachings of the three turnings:

1. four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle

2. all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation

3. all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation

The definitions of the second and third turnings are identical.

The same sutra also answers the question about the nature of the unconditioned.

"Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also a word provisionally invented by the First Teacher. Now, if the First Teacher provisionally invented this word, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And, if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist."
(ch 2, p 12)

"While teachers of the middle way, mind only, transcendent wisdom, mantra, and other schools may have their own assertions, the fulfillment of those intentions is the same. There is not a single thing that is not contained within mind."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
krodha wrote:
Curious about some opinions on this statement:

"Hello,

My name is Pema Khandro and I first heard of Traktung Rinpoche when a friend of mine wrote to Dungse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche about him. Dungse Rinpoche is the son of Dudjom Rinoche and one of the highest Nyingma Lamas alive - and Traktung Rinpoche's root lama. My friend received a letter back from Dungse Rinpoche's assistant, saying that Traktung Rinpoche (referring to him as Rinpoche) was an excellent teacher of pure Dharma and had Dungse Rinpoche's complete blessing. Later, 3 years ago, I was fortunate enough to be at Pema Osel Ling, teaching seat of Tharchin Rinpoche, when Traktung Rinpoche was there for private teachings with Thinley Norbu Rinpoche and the three year retreat people. Dungse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche had Traktung Rinpoche sit on a small throne - the only other person not sitting on the floor was Dungse Rinpoche himself. The Tibetan Lamas of Pema Osel Ling offered Traktung Rinpoche katas and all referred to him as 'Rinpoche'. In a public tsog feast Traktung Rinpoche was given a public place of honor by Dungse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche, and Dungse Rinpoche spoke of him to the gathered group - again referring to him as 'Rinpoche' and saying he was very courageous in upholding 'pure dharma'. Later in the evening Thinley Norbu Rinpoche said 'I love Traktung Rinpoche very sincerely from my heart.' 

Last year I was at Pema Oself Ling when Traktung Rinpoche came to visit Tharchin Rinpoche. Again he was treated with great respect. When he insisted on prostrating to Tharchin Rinpoche, Tharchin Rinpoche also prostrated to him. Tharchin Rinpoche also had all the three year retreat people offer katas to Traktung Rinpoche and he spoke of Dungse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche's respect for Traktung Rinpoche. Tharchin Rinpoche is coming to teach at Traktung Rinpoche's center Tspogyelgar this summer and offering the Dudjom Tersar Three Roots Empowerments. I have also seen the long life prayer wirtten by the Tibetan Nyingma Lama Orgyen Tanzin Rinpoche which explains Traktung Rinpoche as the tulku of Do Khyentse Yeshe Dorje, a high lama from the Golok region of Tibet. Lama Tanzin Rinpoche is a direct student of Dudjom Rinpoche and Dungse Rinpoche. I have also spoken with Hamta Tulku Lama Yonton a high Geluk and Nyingmapa tulku from Golok who confirmed this recognition for me again. 

I have now heard Traktung Rinpoche speak several times in Germany and also listened to his talks on Vajrayana on the internet. His knowledge of Vajrayana is astounding - especially in the area of the yogic traditions of 3rd Karmapa Rangjung Dorje, Longchenpa's commentary on Guyagharba and the works of Dudjom Rinpoche. His knowledge of the subtle aspects of the stages of the path in Kagyu and Nyingmapa traditions is profound. Also his knowledge of world religions, he has a degree in comparative religion, is amazing. I know from some of Traktung Rinpoche's students that he refuses to allow any students of his to ever defend him against attacks. Traktung Rinpoche never charges for Dharma teachings and currently also does not accept students. Traktung Rinpoche himself is very humble and makes light of his 'recognition' often refusing to allow anyone around him to call him 'Rinpoche' He refuses to 'post certificates' - he says that since he does not accept students he prefers people to simply evaluate his words in their own right by comparing them to pure dharma sources - as the Buddha suggested. Still it is good to be careful spreading any negative gossips about sublime beings so I have written this little bit which I know first hand about Traktung Rinpoche to help clarify this matter. 

Sncerely, Pema Khandro"

http://www.dharmaling.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1284&page=2


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 16th, 2014 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: The Three Skyes
Content:
Nirvan said:
Like you can speak about Thogel, the 4 visions etc. without explaining the practice itself.

krodha wrote:
That's a slippery slope, my friend.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Yeah, Traktung Khepa or Traktung Yeshe Dorje, from Michigan. He's considered to be a tulku of Do Khyentse Yeshe Dorje per Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.

Malcolm said:
No, per himself. His association with DTR was very subsequent to his proclamation of his own tulkuship. I have observed the development of Kirkpatrick's self-mythology for 20 years on the internet. The DTR relationship is rather late.

But this is off-topic, and if people choose to believe Kirkpatrick's claims about himself, that is their business and none of mine.

krodha wrote:
Appreciate the clarification!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 7:59 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I take it you don't recommend him then?

krodha wrote:
I too have heard of some controversy, but also have a friend who is a student of Traktung Khepa and is very much enjoying his experience with him so far... so I try to stay neutral.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
one morning at breakfast Rinpoche (Traktung Khepa) said "[/i]

Jikan said:
is the person called Rinpoche in the story named Traktung Khepa?

thanks

krodha wrote:
Yeah, Traktung Khepa or Traktung Yeshe Dorje, from Michigan. He's considered to be a tulku of Do Khyentse Yeshe Dorje per Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: Contra Buddhist Modernism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Non-affirming negation really just means that Madhyamaka refutes the inherency of everything and doesn't put forth (or affirm) any of it's own views. Like that Buddhapalita quote Malcolm cited some time ago; 'we do not assert non-existence, we merely remove claims for existing existents'.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 4:18 PM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
alpha said:
So does Rinpoche mean that that particular crayfish was a Tsen Warrior ?

krodha wrote:
Apparently so, taking the form of a crayfish. Either that or it was a messenger of the Tsen, sort of like black animals are supposed to be messengers of Mahakāla. Enjoyable anecdote either way.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 7th, 2014 at 3:55 PM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
krodha wrote:
Speaking of Tsiu Marpo, a friend shared this story the other day:

"Living near Rinpoche and being a close disciple over the last 20 years I have been lucky enough to see some astounding things like the day the lord of the Tsen protectors [Tsiu Marpo] came to a Drupchen. This was in 1999.

We were practicing the Hayagriva sadhana on forest land in Indiana and one morning at breakfast Rinpoche (Traktung Khepa) said 'Today the Lord of the Tsen will be paying us a visit. He is the holder of this land, lord of these forests.' The Tsen are a male warrior spirit that live in the woodlands. They are always red. Those of us at breakfast were most intrigued. The sadhana began and Rinpoche was sitting with us under the large tent outdoors, maybe 30 or so people. He was sitting facing us in the front middle at a puja table.

Suddenly, in the middle of the protector prayers, from a stream about 100 yards away came walking slowly the largest deep red crayfish I have ever seen. It was huge, maybe 4 to 5 inches long with large pincers. The crayfish walked through the grass and directly in front of Rinpoche puja table where it raised up its pincers waving them in the air. The crayfish stayed for the duration of the entire sadhana, about 45 minutes and as the final prayers of dedication ended it simply walked back to the stream.

When the sadhana was over Rinpoche smiled and said 'He was marvelous wasn’t he!' All beings share in the interconnecting tendrels of wisdom and compassion. All beings long into and for the beauty, truth and goodness of Guru Rinpoche’s wisdom splendor."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 4:36 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning Buddhism, What Now?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
...than to hit others with doctrine and orthodoxy.

krodha wrote:
Thou shalt only bludgeon others with the orthodox doctrine of scientific materialism.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 10:16 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist beliefs
Content:
rachmiel said:
Newborn babies are often used as an example of the natural state: a fluid mind that observes without interpreting or reifying what it sees. Pure awareness, subject without object. But newborn mind can also be seen as a physiologically immature work in progress, one that reaches fruition and full ability later on in life.

krodha wrote:
That description is an inaccurate portrayal the natural state [gnas lugs]. A mind that observes without interpreting is just a mind observing without interpreting, that activity is a provisional means or meditation which may be used in order to gain non-conceptual insight which reveals dharmatā, but the means in itself is not the natural state. Subject without object would also be an inaccurate description of gnas lugs [tathātva].


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Confusion or contradition?
Content:
krodha wrote:
With rebirth it's usually said that only ignorance transmigrates, to put it coarse way. Just as we feel we're an entity which endures moment to moment subject to different experiences in daily life. The way the web of interdependent conditions coalesce to create the illusion of an inherent being is very compelling and the conditioned habits which arise as a result only serve to solidify that nescience.

There's no entity or self within the various aggregated factors which create the illusion of an enduring self even now. However we as sentient beings do not recognize this, and so we are caught in the throes of afflictive patterning and habitual tendencies which sustain the illusion of being a conditioned entity.

Just as this process endures throughout our lives, through night and day, it will persist after death. And so what continues in rebirth is merely the same aggregated conditions which were present in the last life. This is what the buddhadharma addresses and seeks to correct.

So in that way, there is no actual rebirth in rebirth, nothing substantial which transmigrates, however ignorance is self-perpetuating and manifests the appearance of an enduring entity. Overcome ignorance and the entire charade collapses.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Challenge23 said:
That's easy.   Do I have significantly more good days than bad?  Do the teachings make perfect sense after a single reading?  Is my health radically improved?  Do I have that awesome blissed out thing that some practitioners seem to experience all(or at least most) of the time?  Am I able to perfectly balance my own needs with the needs of others without being a jerk about it?  Do I have a radically diminished need for "stuff"(this is a higher bar than you might think because I already don't need all that that much)?  Are subsequent practices afterwards like eating german chocolate cake with fresh milk?   I can go on with a number of examples but you get the idea.  I'd be happy if I just got one of those

krodha wrote:
None of this is proper motivation for doing ngöndro, and expecting or desiring these things may very well prevent them from flowering. Your motivation should be in line with the opening and closing aspirations you do with each session of practice, and in my opinion that proper motivation should result in an immediate satisfaction.

I mean this is just some advice, take it or leave it, but functioning under the premise that you give every ounce of benefit and merit away, while expecting nothing, wanting nothing, desiring nothing, except to have your practice benefit others is the correct motivation. Otherwise you've compromised your practice from the very beginning.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 2nd, 2014 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Actually, terms such as "eye consciousness" and 'ear consciousness" are misleading. Those parts of the body do not possess consciousness. The activity associated with the sense organs, once light enters the eye, and vibrating air molecules reach the ear, occurs in the brain, which also itself has no consciousness. Nothing but neurological activity... and of course, some awareness of that neurological activity which manifests as sensory experience.

krodha wrote:
We're coming at this from two entirely different angles now. The point of the "eye-consciousness" [cakṣurvijñāna] (and the other seven consciousnesses) is to propose a conventional model (for the purposes of upāya) in order to allow the aspirant a means to pierce the seeming inherency of consciousness in general. Unlike the intromission theory you are referencing, the eight-consciousness model is not a statement (or proposition) of ontological truth. And that exclusively conventional nature is characteristically implied due to the fact that the buddhadharma contends that inherency (in general) is a figment of deluded cognition which is completely unreal. Therefore the label "eye consciousness" is a term which is implemented so that the visual faculty and all of its implied constitutional characteristics can be compartmentalized into a single grouping for the purposes of analysis or expeditious delineation (eye-consciousness accounting for (i) sensory organ [eye], (ii) sensory cognition [seeing] and (iii) sensory objects [sights]).

At any rate, intromission theory is really only towing the standard party line when it comes to a modern materialist scientific interpretation of consciousness. While the processes you are writing about are all well and good in a conventional sense, they have no practical application (in the sense of being a means to liberate you from the conditioned projections of inherency which is attributed to your conscious condition). In fact, the model you are proposing (and championing) actually serves to fortify the conditioning that the buddhadharma is attempting to dispel.

The eight-consciousnesses [aṣṭavijñāna] as a conventional model is meant to be a tangible and empirical guideline for your direct experience, whereas the intromission theory you are discussing with its various electro-chemical processes is inferential in every way. The former model (the eight-consciousnesses) is one means to reveal the non-arising of consciousness, that cannot be said for the latter (intromission) which possesses zero soteriological value.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 4:23 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
I am not reducing everything into awareness.
It is obvious that events occur of which there is no awareness
(often, until it is too late to change things).
But while those events might be refuted,
shown, perhaps, in some existential way that there is no absolute proof that they are really happening,
There is no denying that awareness is happening.

krodha wrote:
Sure but that doesn't mean the inherency of awareness cannot be refuted. Awareness is dependently originated just like any other conditioned phenomena is. To use Nāgārjuna's logic; if you can have awareness without objects, then you can have objects without awareness. Obviously you cannot have objects without awareness, and therefore you cannot have awareness without objects, meaning awareness is dependent and therefore without inherency and entirely refutable.

PadmaVonSamba said:
You can't deny that awareness occurs.
As soon as you try, there is still awareness of that denial,
And that denial is an object of awareness.

krodha wrote:
Rather than positing a solitary awareness which abides while events (such as denial) pass before it, perhaps try (as mentioned above) viewing awareness as dependent upon each alleged appearance. You can even go as far as to say that each object has its own awareness which is associated with it.

Or view the aggregated eight consciousnesses as heterogeneous, meaning that there is no linking core between them. The eye consciousness and its objects is a separate consciousness from the ear consciousness and its objects, and so on. There is no single core consciousness or awareness but many consciousnesses or awarenesses. Each dependently originated and lacking inherency.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
There is awareness,
and there is everything which is an object of that awareness.

The fact of awareness is, I think, the only thing which cannot be refuted.

krodha wrote:
Awareness can surely be refuted. Otherwise you're advocating for reductionist tīrthika views which subsume everything into awareness.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
LastLegend said:
Well there is something. That's why we are here.

krodha wrote:
Yes, there is ignorance and karmic formation.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 1st, 2014 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
I cannot deny that it seems that I am the very same person sitting in front of my computer that I was a minute ago, that I was a week ago, a year ago, or was as a child. It feels like a constant person.

But it isn't. It is a series of rapidly arising conditionally-created events of the mind.

uan said:
Then there is no rebirth, or more specifically, what we refer to as rebirth as being something that exists after we die. But in reality, it's just that there is a larger gap between me in the now, and what I am picturing in the future. But it is always going to be experienced as a series of rapidly arising conditionally-created event of the mind - from the moment when this current body ceases to function, through the bardo, through rebirth, etc.

If rebirth is something we experience each moment, then what we conventionally consider (or most Buddhist consider) rebirth is no such thing.

krodha wrote:
There are multiple applications of rebirth. The moment-to-moment interpretation of rebirth doesn't contradict the usual lifetime-to-lifetime view of rebirth.

The seeming continuity of a self is of course an aggregated process, whether that continuity is being addressed in the context of being momentary or an entire lifespan. So the continuity of those processes from one lifetime to the next merely means that the momentary process is continuing. Just like the illusion of going to sleep and waking up in the morning; the same aggregated processes manifest the appearance of an entity which has endured through those events, and so in the same way the same aggregated processes will manifest the appearance of an entity which traverses the bardo and is reborn in the next life.

The idea of momentary rebirth is meant to convey insight into the subtle meaning of transience and impermanence. Subtle impermanence is encountered through non-arising, wherein the illusion of a core or essence of a given appearance is severed, and so without any enduring identity every apparent instance of manifestation is disjoint, unique and unrelated. Inferential concepts like this can be helpful in cutting through the illusion of an entity which is enduring through time. Instead of assuming the self is a homogenous entity which is abiding, it can be intuited that the self is merely an aggregated and heterogeneous amalgamation of causes and conditions, each apparent instance of expression being unique and unrelated to any other instance ('instances' therefore being equally unreal in the ultimate sense).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 1:59 PM
Title: Re: work
Content:
TaTa said:
Hey just curious, do you know what reason does Norbu gives? Of he does give any reason... Thank you.

krodha wrote:
Rinpoche said that if we (as practitioners) eat meat it creates a positive cause for the animal. We should primarily consume the meat while in the state of contemplation, however that state isn't within everyones grasp so we should aim to at least be present. Eating meat during tsog especially creates a positive connection for the animal.

Rinpoche also states that during tsog, whether we are resting in contemplation or not we should aim to be present and refrain from accepting and rejecting, the point is to experience the food fully, taste, texture, consistency, colors and so on. The food is an offering, so the experience is meant to be free of our personal limitations etc.

There is also the aspect of Dzogchen which dispenses with the sentient and insentient dichotomy, so everything is seen as sentient, or perhaps free from such distinctions altogether. And in that case the fundamental nature of the meat is no different than anything else, and therefore any reason we could find to reject the meat is an expression of ignorance (in the ultimate sense).

Another point Rinpoche makes is that rejecting meat on the grounds that an animal died, while having no problem with eating grains, vegetables and fruit etc., is somewhat hypocritical due to the fact that countless sentient beings perish (such as small bugs) in the maintenance and cultivation of those fruits and vegetables. Especially nowadays with the methods implemented in modern industrial farming and so on. He also says that the animal is already dead by the time it is on your plate, so you might as well eat the meat with pure intentions and create an auspicious connection for the animal, no use in wasting the meat, because if you discard the meat then the animal died for nothing.

I'm vegetarian myself, have been for over 10 years, but I will eat meat at ganapuja and so on.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Neither X nor not-X in Buddhist texts
Content:
krodha wrote:
Neither X nor not-X does not define nor suggest a transcendent. It suggests that the X which could allegedly exist or not-exist cannot be found to begin with. X is non-arisen.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 29th, 2014 at 8:54 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Sherab said:
AN 10.58
"All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless."

MN 72
Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea.

I think I have problem with the view that each individual has one mindstream that goes from delusion to enlightenment.
I prefer to think that each individual has parallel mindstreams, one that is polluted and can be seen and one that is unpolluted (and from which the polluted mindstream emerge) and can only be fanthomed by enlightened beings.

krodha wrote:
Conventionally there are individuals endowed with mind streams, and there is either correct or incorrect knowledge of that condition (conventionally referred to as 'mind'). Realized beings simply posses a correct knowledge of their condition, whereas sentient beings do not. In the case of a fully awakened Buddha, that knowledge is complete and totally divested of obscurations.

This goes back to that other recent (lengthy) thread on the basis being one's unfabricated mind. Which discussed how the presence of knowledge [vidyā] or ignorance [avidyā] decides how the single continuum of mind expresses itself. The neutral mind [jñatā] either (i) becomes afflicted in the presence of ignorance [avidyā], whereby it is expressed as consciousness [vijñāna], or (ii) it is unafflicted in the presence of knowledge [vidyā] whereby it is expressed as wisdom [jñāna].


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Title: Re: work
Content:
krodha wrote:
Depends from teacher to teacher, many masters have no issue with meat and some do. They all seem to agree that it is okay to eat the meat of animals who's death you had no karmic connection with (meaning the animal didn't die by your hands, nor was it killed for you specifically). Some teachers say to avoid meat from an animal that was deliberately killed in any sense, and only eat the meat of animals who died due to natural causes or by accident (this is the position of Dzogchen master Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen). Other lamas such as Chatral Rinpoche do not even allow meat on the premises of his land. And then other teachers such as Chögyal Namkhai Norbu support eating meat in general. So there is no uniform view, best to follow the advice of your teacher.

That is sort of the rundown when it comes to eating meat, as for handling it I'm not sure, but would imagine you will again hear different things.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Experiencing my own affliction does not mean the entire charade is relegated to the realm of mind or consciousness (as I believe would be implied by the Cittamatran view).

But perhaps this is better: The pronounced expression of my own ignorance is the five elements [aggregates]. 'Material reality' is a conventional abstraction which is reified as valid through self-perpetuating, habitual tendencies of grasping etc. the entire structure implied by these processes has no reality apart from delusion.

smcj said:
So you'd be a Madhyamika?

krodha wrote:
I consider Dzogchen my heart dharma, but enjoy the Madhyamaka view as well. The above can apply to either I suppose.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 11:22 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
smcj said:
I experience the pronounced traces of my own deeply engrained affliction, which we may conventionally refer to as a 'material reality'.
Apparently you are a Cittamatran.

(I'd say Yogacaran, but unfortunately that term has become ambiguous since different khenpos currently use different definitions for it.)

krodha wrote:
Experiencing my own affliction does not mean the entire charade is relegated to the realm of mind or consciousness (as I believe would be implied by the Cittamatran view).

But perhaps this is better: The pronounced expression of my own ignorance is the five elements [aggregates]. 'Material reality' is a conventional abstraction which is reified as valid through self-perpetuating, habitual tendencies of grasping etc. the entire structure implied by these processes has no reality apart from delusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
You seem to be functioning under the presupposition that there is in fact a material reality apart from your own deeply engrained conditioning.

PadmaVonSamba said:
You seem to deny that you experience a material reality.

krodha wrote:
I experience the pronounced traces of my own deeply engrained affliction, which we may conventionally refer to as a 'material reality'. That however does not mean that I am truly experiencing a material reality. Ultimately, 'material reality' is an abstraction which is reified by habitual patterns of delusion and a thick accumulation of traces. It certainly appears quite real, there is no doubt about that, yet the degree of its reality is directly congruent to the level of ignorance present in your condition. Which means when you are divested of ignorance, the conventional appearance we know as the world appears like an illusion, without the slightest degree of materiality (or reality) to be found therein. For it is a charade with no reality apart from ignorance.

O Protector, You have said that the entire conditionally born [world exists only] by convention... Like a dream, an illusion, [or] seeing two moons: Thus have You seen the world, as a creation not created as real. Like a son who is born, established, and dies in a dream, the world, You have said, is not really born, does not endure, and is not destroyed.
- Acintyastavaḥ


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for karma
Content:
JamesNewell said:
The fact of reincarnation means that when one body dies, the consciousness must migrate to another brain at a distance.

Wayfarer said:
I don't think that is the Buddhist view.

krodha wrote:
Definitely not.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 12:29 PM
Title: Re: My first of many questions
Content:
krodha wrote:
A teacher is an indispensable requirement for Vajrayāna, but doesn't sound as if that is the type of path which resonates with you so I'd imagine you're good to go it alone (practicing Pure Land).

But then again I'm not well versed with Pure Land so you can take my word on the Vajrayāna part but other's advice may be better with Pure Land.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 10:58 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
...and my point is that is that all the Vajrayana traditions are preserved via the exact same material reality "that is so deeply ingrained in our culture", that malcom is so eager to condemn.

How totally hypocritical to say that a scientific view, because it is established on some method of measuring and evaluating what is immediately observable, is crap, and is leaving piles of traces in our mindstreams...

...but that the same material reality that make up the collections of printed teachings, the precise measurement of stupas, the minerals ground for the pigments used in painting thangkas, the relics left after cremation, all of the ceremonial headgear, musical instruments, butter lamps and even the examples of pots and so forth used in philosophical arguments,  not to mention the carbon based forms that teachers occupy...is not indicative of an intrinsically materialist view.

If a Buddhist lights a candle, that's valid.
But if a scientist measures the amount of heat and light given by the candle,
that's bullshit?
. . .

krodha wrote:
You seem to be functioning under the presupposition that there is in fact a material reality apart from your own deeply engrained conditioning.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Malcolm's teachers never appeared materially.

krodha wrote:
All of our teachers, assuming we have a teacher (or multiple teachers), represent an unbroken lineage which goes back to Buddha Śākyamuni (this is also assuming we are discussing this notion in the context of Vajrayāna). Our teacher(s) in this life certainly appear materially, and those practitioners with high capacity actually have access to 'non-material' teachers (via pure vision) as well. Therefore the living teacher you interact with is a direct expression and representation of that lineage of Buddhas, bodhisattvas and vidyādharas. Not to mention a living expression of dharmakāya, which is the mind of all Buddhas.

What is surviving (or being passed on) through the lineage is (i) the tradition and path, and (ii) wisdom-knowledge, so if you are involved with the tradition and have recognized your nature, you intimately know the heart-essence of the lineage, alive in you.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
So, you are saying they are figments of your imagination?

krodha wrote:
Is this an attempt to evoke an ultimate point of view? Because it is rather extreme and unnecessary. We can all sit around and conjure up ultimate points of view, declaring that everything is ultimately imaginary and unreal, however all that accomplishes is nihilism.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Understanding of karma
Content:
krodha wrote:
Someone shared this from Tulku Pema Rigtsal some time ago, good insight for this thread:

"Until our pure presence is a constant, until we attain fearless confidence, we must attend to karmic causality, vows and samayas, accumulation of merit, abstention from vice, and so forth. As Padmasambhava famously said, quoted in The Chronicles of Padmasambhava, which were revealed by Orgyen Lingpa, My view is higher than the sky; My karma is finer than barley flour. Pay attention to karmically effected events with the same care we reserve for protection of the eyes. But at the same time, such events should not be seen as real and true. Quoted in The Samye Chronicles, Padmasambhava again says, 'Maharaj! In my tantra it is the view that leads; but don’t let your conduct bend toward the view. If you do let it stray, you take the black demonic sophistic view that may justify any wicked action by emptiness. But on the other hand, don’t let the view tend toward conduct because if you do, trapped by notions of concrete materialism and specific attributes, the occasion for liberation will never arise.' Due to his misconception of karmic cause and effect, Tarpa Nakpo was born in hell and then reborn as Rudra. For further details of this story, browse through the tantra The Discourse of the General Assembly. Tarpa Nakpo’s fate was determined by his contempt for karmic repercussion in his confusion about the causal process. As Jowoje Atisha said in The Lamp of the Path, until concepts are exhausted, there is karma; believe in the repercussions of karma."

And this from Longchenpa:

"Some say: 'Cause and effect [karma], compassion and merits are the dharma for ordinary people, and it will not lead to enlightenment. O great yogis! You should meditate upon the ultimate meaning, effortless as space.'

These kinds of statements are the views of the utmost nihilism, they have entered the path of the most inferior. It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause."
- rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
For some people it is important. For me it's not meaningful. If you want to follow Buddha's teachings then it is best to slowly divest yourself of concepts regarding Buddhist teachings.

krodha wrote:
This makes no sense. Seems to be a misinterpretation of what it means for wisdom to be free of concepts.

Andrew108 said:
Sooner or later you are left with life and a direct view.

krodha wrote:
This whole "life" thing is something you fabricated, the teachings state nothing of the sort, and while the definitive view is a certain species of insight regarding the nature of "life", it surely isn't just "life".

Andrew108 said:
Equality is the key understanding and if someone draws a line and declares one way is the only way then they haven't really understood from their heart what it means to be a Buddhist.

krodha wrote:
I don't see that anyone at any point in this thread has drawn a line and declared one way. You seem to be quite conflicted about your beliefs. This treatment of 'equality' is also another misinterpretation.

Andrew108 said:
I'm saying that it is possible to be a Secular Buddhist. Also I am saying that whilst I respect my teachers I don't follow everything they say.

krodha wrote:
I wouldn't expect anything different from you, Andrew.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 26th, 2014 at 3:20 PM
Title: Re: Is Rebirth Unscientific?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Beliefs tend to reinforce identities.

krodha wrote:
As does disbelief, which is simply believing that something isn't true. So is agnosticism. Identities form via identification, if you take a side on an issue you are identifying with something. Which isn't an issue for those who know how to work with such things.

Andrew108 said:
Building an identity so that you may at some point in the future be liberated from such identity-making seems pointless.

krodha wrote:
Finding value in the idea of rebirth does not equate to "building an identity". However to play devil's advocate; even if placing weight in rebirth did construct an identity, identities aren't the issue. Ignorance and wisdom are the point. One's identity is simply known to be a conventionality from the standpoint of wisdom, and therefore isn't an issue. Identities are only problematic from the standpoint of delusion.

Andrew108 said:
There is also the issue of petty sectarianism where other views can't be tolerated and are seen as being a threat. Such sectarianism pushes people away and that by itself will cause Buddhism to diminish. It is sectarianism and intolerance of other views that will be the reason Buddhism destroys itself from the inside.

krodha wrote:
Petty sectarianism is nothing more than the result of small minds clinging to views. But either way, as soon as views come into the picture, sectarianism is automatically a possibility, and therefore is automatically part of the spectrum of conduct surrounding views. This is unavoidable. And just as you'll have petty sectarianism you'll also have open minded and compassionate people who celebrate different views.

Bottom line; sectarianism is part of the fabric of any tradition or system, and doesn't speak for the whole of the system or tradition. So there will be no destruction of Buddhism from the inside because of sectarian polemics... sectarianism is commonplace, just as non-sectarianism is commonplace. Welcome to humans identifying with views, it's been going strong for centuries and isn't going anywhere.

In any case, choosing to believe that rebirth is invalid doesn't really constitute a sect anyway, nor does disagreeing with rebirth naysayers constitue a sect. So sectarianism doesn't come into the picture in this case, all that is occurring is people disagreeing about something. Pretty normal and straightforward stuff.

Andrew108 said:
Since the logic is not there, it should be perfectly acceptable for a Buddhist to not accept rebirth. They should not have to feel excluded or de-valued because of their agnosticism or reasoned disbelief.

krodha wrote:
The "logic not being there" is your own opinion, backed by your own confirmation biases. Your position on the "logic" does not mean the logic actually fails, it just means you choose to believe it is invalid.


